A systematic review of economic evaluations of conservative treatments for chronic lower extremity musculoskeletal complaints.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Objective
The aim was to appraise and synthesize studies evaluating the clinical and cost effectiveness of conservative interventions for chronic lower extremity musculoskeletal (MSK) conditions and describe their characteristics, including the type of economic evaluation, primary outcomes and which conditions.Methods
The search strategy related to economic evaluations of lower limb MSK conditions that used conservative therapies. Eight electronic databases were searched (CENTRAL, MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, PEDro, NHSEED and Proquest), as were the reference lists from included articles. The quality of articles was appraised using a modified version of the economic evaluations' reporting checklist (economic) and The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias (clinical).Results
Twenty-six studies were eligible and included in the review. Economic evaluations of conservative interventions for OA or pain affecting the knee/hip (n = 25; 93%) were most common. The main approaches adopted were cost-utility analysis (n = 17; 68%) or cost-effectiveness analysis (n = 5; 19%). Two studies involved interventions including footwear/foot orthoses; for heel pain (n = 1; 4%) and overuse injuries (n = 1; 4%). Fifty per cent of economic evaluations adopted the EQ-5D-3L as the primary outcome measure for quality of life and quality-adjusted life year calculations.Conclusion
Economic evaluations have been conducted largely for exercise-based interventions for MSK conditions of the hip and knee. Few economic evaluations have been conducted for other clinically important lower limb MSK conditions. A matrix presentation of costs mapped with outcomes indicated increasing costs with either no difference or improvements in clinical effectiveness. The majority of economic evaluations were of good reporting quality, as were the accompanying clinical studies.
SUBMITTER: Fenocchi L
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6649923 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundIt is difficult to gain an overview of musculoskeletal extremity complaints in childhood although this is essential to develop evidence-based prevention and treatment strategies. The objectives of this systematic review were therefore to describe the prevalence and incidence of musculoskeletal extremity complaints in children and adolescents in both general and clinical populations in relation to age, anatomical site and mode of onset.MethodsMEDLINE and EMBASE were electronically searched; risk of bias was assessed; and data extraction was individually performed by two authors.ResultsIn total, 19 general population studies and three clinical population studies were included with children aged 0-19 years. For most of the analyses, a division between younger children aged 0-12 years, and older children aged 10-19 years was used. Lower extremity complaints were more common than upper extremity complaints regardless of age and type of population, with the most frequent pain site changing from ankle/foot in the youngest to knee in the oldest. There were about twice as many non-traumatic as traumatic complaints in the lower extremities, whereas the opposite relationship was found for the upper extremities in the general population studies. There were relatively more lower extremity complaints in the general population studies than in the clinical population studies. The review showed no pattern of differences in reporting between studies of high and low risk of bias.ConclusionsThis review shows that musculoskeletal complaints are more frequent in the lower extremities than in the upper extremities in childhood, and there are indications of a large amount of non-traumatic low intensity complaints in the population that do not reach threshold for consultation. A meta-analysis, or even a simple overall description of prevalence and incidence of musculoskeletal extremity complaints in children and adolescents was not feasible, due to a large variety in the studies, primarily related to outcome measurements.
| S-EPMC5648427 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThe main objective of this study was to identify, describe, classify and analyze the scientific health economic evidence of VL-related technologies.MethodsA web search of combinations of free text and Mesh terms related to the economic evaluation of visceral leishmaniasis was conducted on scientific publication databases (Web of Science, Scopus, Medline via the Pubmed and Lilacs). A manual search of references lists of articles previously identified by the authors was also included. Articles written in English, Portuguese, Spanish or French were considered suitable for inclusion. Articles that matched the inclusion criteria were screened by at least two researchers, who extracted information regarding the epidemiologic scenario and methodological issues on a standardized form.ResultsThe initial search retrieved 107 articles, whose abstracts were inspected according to the inclusion criteria leading to a first selection of 49 (46%) articles. After the elimination of duplicates, the list was reduced to 21 (20%) articles. After careful reading and application of exclusion criteria, 14 papers were eligible according to the description, classification and analysis process proposed by the study. When classified by type of economic evaluation, articles were 7 (50%) cost-effectiveness, 5 (36%) cost-minimization, 1(7%) cost-benefit, and 1(7%) budget impact. When classified by methodology, studies were mainly nested to clinical-trials ("piggy back") 8(57%). Discount rates for outcomes and costs were present in 3 (43%) of the cost-effectiveness studies, and according to WHO's recommendations, the discount rate of 3% was used in all studies.ConclusionsThis article showed that health economic evaluations on visceral leishmaniasis used a wide range of technologies and methods. Nevertheless it is important to point out the geographic concentration of studies, which makes their transferability uncertain to different epidemiological scenarios, especially those concerning visceral leishmaniasis caused by Leishmania infantum.
| S-EPMC4344218 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: The disease burden of active tuberculosis (TB) is considerable, but systematic reviews of economic evaluations of active TB treatments are scarce. Methods: PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library databases were used to search for articles on cost-effectiveness analysis or cost-utility analysis that economically evaluated active TB treatments, which were then systematically reviewed by two independent reviewers. We extracted vital components of the included studies, such as country, population, intervention/comparator, primary outcome, values of outcomes, thresholds, model type, time horizon, and health states included in the model. Results: Seventeen studies were included in this systematic review. Thirteen dealt with interventions of medications, and the remaining four compared care strategies. The Markov model was the most commonly used tool to compare medications, whereas studies on care plans mainly used decision trees. The most commonly used primary outcome was disability-adjusted life years, followed by quality-adjusted life years. For treatment-naïve TB, the 4-month regimen was more cost-effective than the 6-month regimen mainly in low- and middle-income countries. For multidrug-resistant TB, a bedaquiline-based regimen was cost-effective. For multidrug-resistant TB, decentralized care that employed the use of home or mobile devices was more cost-effective than hospital-based centralized care in low- and middle-income countries. Conclusion: New treatment strategies to improve therapeutic outcomes by enhancing treatment adherence, such as regimens with shorter durations (2 or 4 months) and decentralized care, or new anti-TB agents (e.g., bedaquiline) have been suggested as cost-effective interventions for active TB. This review provides information on the economic evaluation of active TB from good-quality studies, thus aiding the future economic evaluation of active TB.
| S-EPMC8710595 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeThe borderline personality disorder is a common mental disorder. It is frequently associated with various mental co-morbidities and a fundamental loss of functioning. The borderline personality disorder causes high costs to society. The aim of this study was to perform a systematic literature review of existing economic evaluations of treatments for borderline personality disorder.Materials and methodsWe performed a systematic literature search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and NHSEED for partial and full economic evaluations regarding borderline personality disorder. Reported cost data were inflated to the year 2012 and converted into US-$ using purchasing power parities to allow for comparability. Quality assessment of the studies was performed by means of the Consensus on Health Economic Criteria checklist, a checklist developed by a Delphi method in cooperation with 23 international experts.ResultsWe identified 6 partial and 9 full economic evaluations. The methodical quality was moderate (fulfilled quality criteria: 79.2% [SD: 15.4%] in partial economic evaluations, 77.3% [SD: 8.5%] in full economic evaluations). Most evaluations analysed psychotherapeutic interventions. Although ambiguous, most evidence exists on dialectical-behavioural therapy. Cognitive behavioural therapy and schema-focused therapy are cost-saving. Evidence on other interventions is scarce.ConclusionThe economic evidence is not sufficient to draw robust conclusions for all treatments. It is possible that some treatments are cost-effective. Most evidence exists on dialectical-behavioural therapy. Yet, it is ambiguous. Further research concerning the cost-effectiveness of treatments is necessary as well as the identification of relevant cost categories and the validation of effect measures.
| S-EPMC4180435 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSpinal muscular atrophy (SMA) is a rare and devastating condition for which new disease-modifying treatments have recently been approved. Given the increasing importance of economic considerations in healthcare decision-making, this review summarizes the studies assessing the cost of SMA and economic evaluations of treatments. A systematic review of the literature in PubMed and Scopus up to 15 September 2020 was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines.ResultsNine studies reporting the annual cost of care of patients with SMA and six evaluations of the cost-effectiveness of SMA treatments were identified. The average annual cost of SMA1, the most frequent and severe form in which symptoms appear before the age of 6 months were similar according to the different studies, ranged from $75,047 to $196,429 per year. The yearly costs for the forms of the later-onset form, called SMA2, SMA3, and SMA4, which were usually pooled in estimates of healthcare costs, were more variable, ranging from $27,157 to $82,474. The evaluations of cost-effectiveness of treatment compared nusinersen treatment against standard of care (n = 3), two treatments (nusinersen and onasemnogene abeparvovec) against each other and no drug treatment (n = 1), nusinersen versus onasemnogene abeparvovec (n = 1), and standard of care versus nusinersen with and without newborn screening (n = 1). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of nusinersen compared to standard of care in SMA1 ranged from $210,095 to $1,150,455 per quality-adjusted life years (QALY) gained and that for onasemnogene abeparvovec ranged from $32,464 to $251,403. For pre-symptomatic patients, the ICER value ranged from $206,409 to $735,519. The ICERs for later-onset forms of SMA (2, 3 and 4) were more diverse ranging from $275,943 to $8,438,049.ConclusionThis review confirms the substantial cost burden of standard of care for SMA patients and the high cost-effectiveness ratios of the approved drugs at the current price when delivered in post-symptomatic patients. Since few studies have been conducted so far, there is a need for further prospective and independent economic studies in pre- and post-symptomatic patients.
| S-EPMC7824917 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesAs healthcare systems continue to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic, cost-effectiveness evidence will be needed to identify which tests and treatments for COVID-19 offer value for money. We sought to review economic evaluations of diagnostic tests and treatments for COVID-19, critically appraising the methodological approaches used and reporting cost-effectiveness estimates, using a "living" systematic review approach.MethodsKey databases (including MEDLINE, EconLit, Embase) were last searched on July 12, 2021. Gray literature and model repositories were also searched. Only full economic evaluations published in English were included. Studies were quality assessed and data were extracted into standard tables. Results were narratively summarized. The review was completed by 2 reviewers independently, with disagreements resolved through discussion with a senior reviewer.ResultsOverall, 3540 records were identified, with 13 meeting the inclusion criteria. After quality assessment, 6 were excluded because of very severe limitations. Of the 7 studies included, 5 were cost-utility analyses and 2 were cost-effectiveness analyses. All were model-based analyses. A total of 5 evaluated treatments (dexamethasone, remdesivir, hypothetical) and 2 evaluated hypothetical testing strategies. Cost-effectiveness estimates were sensitive to the treatment effect on survival and hospitalization, testing speed and accuracy, disease severity, and price.ConclusionsPresently, there are few economic evaluations for COVID-19 tests and treatments. They suggest treatments that confer a survival benefit and fast diagnostic tests may be cost effective. Nevertheless, studies are subject to major evidence gaps and take inconsistent analytical approaches. The evidence may improve for planned updates of this "living" review.
| S-EPMC8847103 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and objectiveClostridium difficile infection (CDI) is associated with high management costs, particularly in recurrent cases. Fidaxomicin treatment results in lower recurrence rates than vancomycin and metronidazole, but has higher acquisition costs in Europe and the USA. This systematic literature review summarises economic evaluations (EEs) of fidaxomicin, vancomycin and metronidazole for treatment of CDI.MethodsElectronic databases (MEDLINE®, Embase, Cochrane Library) and conference proceedings (ISPOR, ECCMID, ICAAC and IDWeek) were searched for publications reporting EEs of fidaxomicin, vancomycin and/or metronidazole in the treatment of CDI. Reference bibliographies of identified manuscripts were also reviewed. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated according to the overall population of patients with CDI, as well as in subgroups with severe CDI or recurrent CDI, or those at higher risk of recurrence or mortality.ResultsOverall, 27 relevant EEs, conducted from the perspective of 12 different countries, were identified. Fidaxomicin was cost-effective versus vancomycin and/or metronidazole in 14 of 24 EEs (58.3%), vancomycin was cost-effective versus fidaxomicin and/or metronidazole in five of 27 EEs (18.5%) and metronidazole was cost-effective versus fidaxomicin and/or vancomycin in two of 13 EEs (15.4%). Fidaxomicin was cost-effective versus vancomycin in most of the EEs evaluating specific patient subgroups. Key cost-effectiveness drivers were cure rate, recurrence rate, time horizon, drug costs and length and cost of hospitalisation.ConclusionsIn most EEs, fidaxomicin was demonstrated to be cost-effective versus metronidazole and vancomycin in patients with CDI. These results have relevance to clinical practice, given the high budgetary impact of managing CDI and increasing restrictions on healthcare budgets.OtherThis analysis was initiated and funded by Astellas Pharma Inc.
| S-EPMC5656734 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThe aim of this review was to identify, and assess the quality of, published model-based economic evaluations relating to treatments for patients with venous leg ulcers to help inform future decision-analytic models in this clinical area.MethodsA systematic literature search was performed on six electronic databases, from database inception until 21 May 2018. Search results were screened against predefined criteria by two independent reviewers. Data was then extracted from the included studies using a standardised form, whilst the decision-analytic model-specific Philips Checklist was used to assess quality and to inform model critique.ResultsA total of 23 models were identified, 12 studies used a Markov modelling approach, five used decision trees and six studies did not detail the model type. Studies were predominantly from the National Health Service (NHS)/payer perspective, with only two taking a societal perspective. Interventions were wide ranging, but dressing technologies (11/23) were most common. The intervention studied was found to be dominant in 22/23 studies. The reporting quality of papers was mostly low, with evidence behind model structures, time horizons and data selection consistently underreported across the included papers.ConclusionsThis review has identified a sizeable literature of model-based economic evaluations, evaluating treatments for venous leg ulcers. However, the methods used to conduct such studies were generally poorly reported. In particular, the reporting of evidence surrounding the model structure, justification of the time horizon used and the rationale for selecting data inputs should be focused on in any future models developed.
| S-EPMC7248160 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDiffering methodological requirements and decision-making criteria are recognised as barriers to transferability of cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) across jurisdictions.ObjectiveWe assessed the generic and specific transferability of published CEAs of systemic treatments for advanced melanoma to the Irish setting.MethodsCEAs of treatments for melanoma were identified by systematic review. Transferability to the Irish setting was assessed using the EUnetHTA transferability tool for Economic Evaluation. We present a narrative discussion comparing the differences in key parameter inputs and the likely impact of these differences on the model outcomes and the reimbursement recommendation. Transferability is considered within the context of the Irish cost-effectiveness threshold, using the net monetary benefit (NMB) framework.ResultsNo published CEAs (n = 15) aligned with the Irish reference case for CEA. Changes to key parameters were unlikely to change the conclusions of the CEA when the cost-effectiveness threshold was considered. Ten studies (19 pairwise comparisons) were compared with findings by the National Centre for Pharmacoeconomics (NCPE) using NMB. Without accounting for differences in the cost-effectiveness threshold, there was alignment between the study conclusions and NCPE recommendations in 73.7% cases. When the Irish cost-effectiveness threshold was applied in the estimation of NMB, there was agreement in 89.5% of cases.ConclusionsAlignment in methodological requirements for CEA is important to facilitate joint health technology assessment (HTA) by regional collaborations in Europe. When parameter inputs are not exactly aligned, conclusions may still be comparable across jurisdictions. For international joint procurement initiatives, determining and implementing joint decision rules may be more important than trying to align rules regarding methodological and parameter inputs.
| S-EPMC7081651 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Several conservative (i.e., nonpharmacologic, nonsurgical) treatments exist for secondary lymphedema. The optimal treatment is unknown. We examined the effectiveness of conservative treatments for secondary lymphedema, as well as harms related to these treatments.We searched MEDLINE®, EMBASE®, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials®, AMED, and CINAHL from 1990 to January 19, 2010. We obtained English- and non-English-language randomized controlled trials or observational studies (with comparison groups) that reported primary effectiveness data on conservative treatments for secondary lymphedema. For English-language studies, we extracted data in tabular form and summarized the tables descriptively. For non-English-language studies, we summarized the results descriptively and discussed similarities with the English-language studies.Thirty-six English-language and eight non-English-language studies were included in the review. Most of these studies involved upper-limb lymphedema secondary to breast cancer. Despite lymphedema's chronicity, lengths of follow-up in most studies were under 6 months. Many trial reports contained inadequate descriptions of randomization, blinding, and methods to assess harms. Most observational studies did not control for confounding. Many studies showed that active treatments reduced the size of lymphatic limbs, although extensive between-study heterogeneity in areas such as treatment comparisons and protocols, and outcome measures, prevented us from assessing whether any one treatment was superior. This heterogeneity also precluded us from statistically pooling results. Harms were rare (< 1% incidence) and mostly minor (e.g., headache, arm pain).The literature contains no evidence to suggest the most effective treatment for secondary lymphedema. Harms are few and unlikely to cause major clinical problems.
| S-EPMC3320521 | biostudies-literature