Dataset Information

Economic Analyses of Respiratory Tract Infection Diagnostics: A Systematic Review.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Diagnostic testing for respiratory tract infections is a tool to manage the current COVID-19 pandemic, as well as the rising incidence of antimicrobial resistance. At the same time, new European regulations for market entry of in vitro diagnostics, in the form of the in vitro diagnostic regulation, may lead to more clinical evidence supporting health-economic analyses.

Objective

The objective of this systematic review was to review the methods used in economic evaluations of applied diagnostic techniques, for all patients seeking care for infectious diseases of the respiratory tract (such as pneumonia, pulmonary tuberculosis, influenza, sinusitis, pharyngitis, sore throats and general respiratory tract infections).

Methods

Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, articles from three large databases of scientific literature were included (Scopus, Web of Science and PubMed) for the period January 2000 to May 2020.

Results

A total of 70 economic analyses are included, most of which use decision tree modelling for diagnostic testing for respiratory tract infections in the community-care setting. Many studies do not incorporate a generally comparable clinical outcome in their cost-effectiveness analysis: fewer than half the studies (33/70) used generalisable outcomes such as quality-adjusted life-years. Other papers consider outcomes related to the accuracy of the test or outcomes related to the prescribed treatment. The time horizons of the studies generally are limited.

Conclusions

The methods to economically assess diagnostic tests for respiratory tract infections vary and would benefit from clear recommendations from policy makers on the assessed time horizon and outcomes used.

SUBMITTER: van der Pol S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8279883 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Childhood acute respiratory tract infections (ARTIs) are a significant cause of morbidity and mortality, so, immunostimulants have been used as a preventative measure. Despite this, there is no updated evidence regarding the safety and efficacy of immunostimulant drugs for this purpose. This study aimed to determine the effectiveness and safety of immunostimulants in preventing ARTIs in children based on the most recent scientific evidence. Data sources such as PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, Google Scholar, and Scopus were searched from 1965 to 10 January 2022 to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing immunostimulants administered by any method, with placebo to prevent ARTIs on children under 18 years of age without immunodeficiencies, anatomical, genetic, or allergic conditions. In order to analyze data from the studies, we used Review Manager 5.4 (The Cochrane Collaboration, 2020), assessed the certainty of the evidence with Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE), and assessed the quality and risk of bias of the studies using the RoB tool 1.0. Further, outcomes were combined and analyzed using meta-analysis, subgroup analysis, and sensitivity analysis. Throughout the review, we included 72 placebo-controlled clinical trials involving 12,229 children. The meta-analyses, however, included only 38 studies (52.8%) with 4643 children (38% of the total) with data on mean number of ARTIs. These studies demonstrated a reduction in the ARTIs (MD -1.12 [95%CI -1.39 to -0.85]) and ratio of means of ARTIs (0.61 [95%CI 0.54-0.69]), corresponding to a percentage reduction of 39% (95%CI, 46%-31%) with moderate-quality data. Nevertheless, since there was considerable to substantial heterogeneity and bias was unclear in all domains in 32 out of 72 trials, the quality of the evidence for efficacy was deemed low. Only 14 trials reported adverse events. The review indicates that immunostimulants reduce the incidence of ARTIs by 40% on average in susceptible children, despite low-quality evidence, heterogeneity, and the possibility of publication bias. However, further studies are needed to establish immunostimulants' safety and efficacy profiles. This review was conducted without the support of any funding and has no registered number.

Project description:BackgroundBacteria colonizing the upper respiratory tract (URT) of young children play a key role in the pathogenesis of lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI).ObjectivesTo systematically review the literature on the association between bacteria colonizing the URT and LRTI among young children.Data sourcesMEDLINE, Academic Search Premier, Africa-Wide Information and CINAHL, Scopus and Web of Science.Study eligibility criteriaStudies published between 1923 and 2020, investigating URT bacteria from LRTI cases and controls.ParticipantsChildren under 5 years with and without acute LRTI.MethodsThree reviewers independently screened titles, abstracts and full texts. Meta-analysis was done using Mantel-Haenszel fixed- or random-effects models.ResultsMost eligible studies (41/50) tested nasopharyngeal specimens when investigating URT bacteria. Most studies were of cross-sectional design (44/50). Twenty-four studies were performed in children in lower- or lower-middle-income countries (LMICs). There was higher prevalence of Haemophilus influenzae (pooled OR 1.60; 95% CI 1.23-2.07) and Klebsiella spp. (pooled OR 2.04; 95% CI 1.17-3.55) from URT specimens of cases versus controls. We observed a positive association between the detection of Streptococcus pneumoniae from URT specimens and LRTI after excluding studies where there was more antibiotic treatment prior to sampling in cases vs. controls (pooled OR 1.41; 95% CI 1.04-1.90). High density colonization with S. pneumoniae (>6.9 log10 copies/mL) was associated with an increased risk for LRTI. The associations between both Streptococcus and Haemophilus URT detection and LRTI were supported, at genus level, by 16S rRNA sequencing. Evidence for the role of Moraxella catarrhalis and Staphylococcus aureus was inconclusive.ConclusionsDetection of H. influenzae or Klebsiella spp. in the URT was associated with LRTI, while evidence for association with S. pneumoniae was less conclusive. Longitudinal studies assessing URT microbial communities, together with environmental and host factors are needed to better understand pathogenesis of childhood LRTI.

Project description:Objective: To evaluate the efficacy, clinical effectiveness, and safety of the Chinese herb Bupleuri radix for the treatment of acute uncomplicated respiratory tract infections (ARTIs). Methods: Four English and four Chinese databases were searched from their inception to June 2021. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing therapeutic effects of Bupleuri radix on ARTI were eligible for inclusion. The risk of bias for each trial was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool 2.0. RevMan 5.4 software was used for data analyses with effects estimated as risk ratios (RR) or mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). The certainty of the evidence was assessed using the online GRADEpro tool. Results: Seven randomized trials involving 910 patients with acute upper respiratory tract infection (AURTI) were included. The review identified Bupleuri radix agents with four administration routes (oral, acupoint injection, intramuscular injection, nebulized inhalation). Bupleuri radix acupoint injection compared with placebo showed statistically significant effects in reducing fever resolution time (MD: -33.32 h, 95%CI: -35.71, -30.93), and in increasing the proportion of participants with fever resolved within 48 h from treatment onset (RR: 14, 95%CI: 1.96, 99.94). Bupleuri radix acupoint injection combined with usual care is more effective in reducing the temperature at day 1 from treatment onset (MD: -1.00°C, 95%CI: -1.19, -0.81) compared with usual care alone. Bupleuri radix pills showed similar antipyretic effects to acetaminophen. However, Bupleuri radix intramuscular injection plus vitamins failed to demonstrate an effect in reducing fever, when compared with ribavirin plus vitamins. It suggested that oral administration of Bupleuri radix solution for injections, pills, and Bupleuri radix decoction have a similar effect on improving global AURTI symptoms including two key symptoms (nasal discharge and cough), when compared with usual care alone. Only two trials reported whether or not there were any AEs and found no occurrence of adverse events in the herbal group. Conclusion: Low-certainty or very low-certainty evidence demonstrated that Bupleuri radix (solution for injections and pills) has an antipyretic effect on febrile patients with AURTI, but it has no effect on other AURTI symptoms. However, these findings need to be further confirmed by well-designed clinical trials with adequate sample sizes. Systematic review registration: (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/#recordDetails), PROSPERO registration number: CRD42021234066.

Project description:Respiratory illness, often associated with cough and sputum, is frequent. In Brazil, herbal medicines are often recommended as a first-line treatment for respiratory illness. There exists uncertainty regarding the effectiveness of these treatments. No systematic review has evaluated Brazilian medicinal plants (BMP) to treat upper respiratory tract and bronchial illness (URTI).We will conduct a systematic review and, if appropriate, a series of meta-analyses evaluating the safety and effectiveness of BMP for URTI. Eligible randomised controlled trials and observational studies will enrol adult or paediatric patients presenting with URTI treated by BMP approved by the Brazilian Health Surveillance Agency compared with placebo, no treatment or an alternative therapy. Our search will include the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), which contains the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Illness Group's Specialized Register; MEDLINE; EMBASE; CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature); Web of Science; AMED; LILACS; CAB abstracts; clinical trial.gov; the WHO Trial Register and the Brazilian thesis database (CAPES) without any language restrictions. Outcomes of interest are time to resolution of clinical symptoms and/or signs (cough, sputum production or activity limitations), severity of symptoms prior to resolution and major/minor adverse events. Teams of reviewers will, independently and in duplicate, screen titles and abstracts and the complete full text to determine eligibility. For eligible studies, reviewers will perform data abstraction and assess risk of bias of eligible trials. When appropriate, we will conduct meta-analyses. We will also assess the quality of body of evidence (confidence in estimates of effect) for each of the outcomes using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.The systematic review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. Brief reports of review findings will be disseminated directly to appropriate audiences via email and other modes of communication. The review will guide healthcare practice and policy in Brazil.Prospero CRD42014007057.