Dataset Information

A systematic review of health economic evaluations of proton beam therapy for adult cancer: Appraising methodology and quality.

ABSTRACT:

Background and purpose

With high treatment costs and limited capacity, decisions on which adult patients to treat with proton beam therapy (PBT) must be based on the relative value compared to the current standard of care. Cost-utility analyses (CUAs) are the gold-standard method for doing this. We aimed to appraise the methodology and quality of CUAs in this area.

Materials and methods

We performed a systematic review of the literature to identify CUA studies of PBT in adult disease using MEDLINE, EMBASE, EconLIT, NHS Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED), Web of Science, and the Tufts Medical Center Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry from 1st January 2010 up to 6th June 2018. General characteristics, information relating to modelling approaches, and methodological quality were extracted and synthesized narratively.

Results

Seven PBT CUA studies in adult disease were identified. Without randomised controlled trials to inform the comparative effectiveness of PBT, studies used either results from one-armed studies, or dose-response models derived from radiobiological and epidemiological studies of PBT. Costing methods varied widely. The assessment of model quality highlighted a lack of transparency in the identification of model parameters, and absence of external validation of model outcomes. Furthermore, appropriate assessment of uncertainty was often deficient.

Conclusion

In order to foster credibility, future CUA studies must be more systematic in their approach to evidence synthesis and expansive in their consideration of uncertainties in light of the lack of clinical evidence.

SUBMITTER: Jones DA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6854069 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A systematic review of health economic evaluations of proton beam therapy for adult cancer: Appraising methodology and quality.

Jones David A DA Smith Joel J Mei Xue W XW Hawkins Maria A MA Maughan Tim T van den Heuvel Frank F Mee Thomas T Kirkby Karen K Kirkby Norman N Gray Alastair A

Clinical and translational radiation oncology 20191031

<h4>Background and purpose</h4>With high treatment costs and limited capacity, decisions on which adult patients to treat with proton beam therapy (PBT) must be based on the relative value compared to the current standard of care. Cost-utility analyses (CUAs) are the gold-standard method for doing this. We aimed to appraise the methodology and quality of CUAs in this area.<h4>Materials and methods</h4>We performed a systematic review of the literature to identify CUA studies of PBT in adult dise ...[more]

PMID: 31754652

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundProton beam therapy (PBT) delivers high-energy radiation to target tumours while sparing surrounding normal tissues. The dosimetric advantages of PBT over traditional photon radiotherapy may be clear but the translation of this benefit into clinically meaningful reductions in toxicities and improved quality-of-life (QoL) needs to be determined. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are considered the gold standard for generating the highest-level evidence in medicine. The objectives of this systematic review were to provide an overview of published clinical studies evaluating the benefits of PBT, and to examine the methodology used in clinical trials with respect to study design and outcomes.MethodsPubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane databases were systematically searched for published clinical studies where PBT was a cancer treatment intervention. All randomised and non-randomised studies, prospective or retrospective, were eligible for inclusion.ResultsIn total, 219 studies were included. Prospective studies comprised 89/219 (41%), and of these, the number of randomised phase II and III trials were 5/89 (6%) and 3/89 (3%) respectively. Of all the phase II and III trials, 18/24 (75%) were conducted at a single PBT centre. Over one-third of authors recommended an increase in length of follow up. Research design and/or findings were poorly reported in 74/89 (83%) of prospective studies. Patient reported outcomes were assessed in only 19/89 (21%) of prospective studies.ConclusionsProspective randomised evidence for PBT is limited. The set-up of national PBT services in several countries provides an opportunity to guide the optimal design of prospective studies, including RCTs, to evaluate the benefits of PBT across various disease sites. Collaboration between PBT centres, both nationally and internationally, would increase potential for the generation of practice changing evidence. There is a need to facilitate and guide the collection and analysis of meaningful outcome data, including late toxicities and patient reported QoL.

Project description:PURPOSE:Probiotics may prevent healthcare-associated infections, such as ventilator-associated pneumonia, Clostridioides difficile-associated diarrhea, and other adverse outcomes. Despite their potential benefits, there are no summative data examining the cost-effectiveness of probiotics in hospitalized patients. This systematic review summarized studies evaluating the economic impact of using probiotics in hospitalized adult patients. METHODS:We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, ACP Journal Club, and other EBM reviews (inception to January 31, 2019) for health economics evaluations examining the use of probiotics in hospitalized adults. Independently and in duplicate, we extracted data study characteristics, risk of bias, effectiveness and total costs (medications, diagnostics/procedures, devices, personnel, hospital) associated with healthcare-associated infections (ventilator-associated pneumonia, Clostridioides difficile-associated diarrhea and antibiotic-associated diarrhea). We used Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methods to assess certainty in the overall cost-effectiveness evidence. RESULTS:Of 721 citations identified, we included seven studies. For the clinical outcomes of interest, there was one randomized-controlled trial (RCT)-based health economic evaluation, and six model-based health economic evaluations. Probiotics showed favourable cost-effectiveness in six of seven (86%) economic evaluations. Three of the seven studies were manufacturer-supported, all which suggested cost-effectiveness. Certainty of cost-effectiveness evidence was very low because of risk of bias, imprecision, and inconsistency. CONCLUSION:Probiotics may be an economically attractive intervention for preventing ventilator-associated pneumonia, Clostridioides difficile-associated diarrhea, and antibiotic-associated diarrhea in hospitalized adult patients. Nevertheless, certainty about their cost-effectiveness evidence is very low. Future RCTs examining probiotics should incorporate cost data to inform bedside practice, clinical guidelines, and healthcare policy. TRIAL REGISTRATION:PROSPERO CRD42019129929; Registered 25 April, 2019.

Project description:BACKGROUND:In increasingly constrained healthcare budgets worldwide, efforts to improve quality and reduce costs are vital. Quality Improvement Collaboratives (QICs) are often used in healthcare settings to implement proven clinical interventions within local and national programs. The cost of this method of implementation, however, is cited as a barrier to use. This systematic review aims to identify and describe studies reporting on costs and cost-effectiveness of QICs when used to implement clinical guidelines in healthcare. METHODS:Multiple databases (CINAHL, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, EMBASE, EconLit and ProQuest) were searched for economic evaluations or cost studies of QICs in healthcare. Studies were included if they reported on economic evaluations or costs of QICs. Two authors independently reviewed citations and full text papers. Key characteristics of eligible studies were extracted, and their quality assessed against the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS). Evers CHEC-List was used for full economic evaluations. Cost-effectiveness findings were interpreted through the Johanna Briggs Institute 'three by three dominance matrix tool' to guide conclusions. Currencies were converted to United States dollars for 2018 using OECD and World Bank databases. RESULTS:Few studies reported on costs or economic evaluations of QICs despite their use in healthcare. Eight studies across multiple healthcare settings in acute and long-term care, community addiction treatment and chronic disease management were included. Five were considered good quality and favoured the establishment of QICs as cost-effective implementation methods. The cost savings to the healthcare setting identified in these studies outweighed the cost of the collaborative itself. CONCLUSIONS:Potential cost savings to the health care system in both acute and chronic conditions may be possible by applying QICs at scale. However, variations in effectiveness, costs and elements of the method within studies, indicated that caution is needed. Consistent identification of costs and description of the elements applied in QICs would better inform decisions for their use and may reduce perceived barriers. Lack of studies with negative findings may have been due to publication bias. Future research should include economic evaluations with societal perspectives of costs and savings and the cost-effectiveness of elements of QICs. TRIAL REGISTRATION:PROSPERO registration number: CRD42018107417.

Project description:BackgroundSepsis is a global health priority. Interventions to reduce the burden of sepsis need to be both effective and cost-effective. We performed a systematic review of the literature on health economic evaluations of sepsis treatments in critically ill adult patients and summarised the evidence for cost-effectiveness.MethodsWe systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library using thesaurus (e.g. MeSH) and free-text terms related to sepsis and economic evaluations. We included all articles that reported, in any language, an economic evaluation of an intervention for the management of sepsis in critically ill adult patients. Data extracted included study details, intervention details, economic evaluation methodology, and outcomes. Included studies were appraised for reporting quality using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist.ResultsWe identified 50 records representing 46 economic evaluations for a variety of interventions including antibiotics (n = 5), fluid therapy (n = 2), early goal-directed therapy and other resuscitation protocols (n = 8), immunoglobulins (n = 2), and interventions no longer in clinical use such as monoclonal antibodies (n = 7) and drotrecogin alfa (n = 13). Twelve (26%) evaluations were of excellent reporting quality. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) ranged from dominant (lower costs and higher effectiveness) for early goal-directed therapy, albumin, and a multifaceted sepsis education program to dominated (higher costs and lower effectiveness) for polymerase chain reaction assays (LightCycler SeptiFast testing MGRADE®, SepsiTest™, and IRIDICA BAC BSI assay). ICERs varied widely across evaluations, particularly in subgroup analyses.ConclusionsThere is wide variation in the cost-effectiveness of sepsis interventions. There remain important gaps in the literature, with no economic evaluations identified for several interventions routinely used in sepsis. Given the high economic and social burden of sepsis, high-quality economic evaluations are needed to increase our understanding of the cost-effectiveness of these interventions in routine clinical practice and to inform decision makers.Trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42018095980.

Dataset Information

A systematic review of health economic evaluations of proton beam therapy for adult cancer: Appraising methodology and quality.

Background and purpose

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

A systematic review of health economic evaluations of proton beam therapy for adult cancer: Appraising methodology and quality.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets