-
Obesity Reviews : An Official Journal... Feb 2023To update existing literature and fill the gap in meta-analyses, this meta-analysis quantitatively evaluated the worldwide economic burden (in 2022 US $) of childhood... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
To update existing literature and fill the gap in meta-analyses, this meta-analysis quantitatively evaluated the worldwide economic burden (in 2022 US $) of childhood overweight and obesity in comparison with healthy weight. The literature search in eight databases produced 7756 records. After literature screening, 48 articles met the eligibility criteria. The increased annual total medical costs were $237.55 per capita attributable to childhood overweight and obesity. Overweight and obesity caused a per capita increase of $56.52, $14.27, $46.38, and $1975.06 for costs in nonhospital healthcare, outpatient visits, medication, and hospitalization, respectively. Length of hospital stays increased by 0.28 days. Annual direct and indirect costs were projected to be $13.62 billion and $49.02 billion by 2050. Childhood obesity ascribed to much higher increased healthcare costs than overweight. During childhood, the direct medical expenditures were higher for males than for females, but, once reaching adulthood, the expenditures were higher for females. Overall, the lifetime costs attributable to childhood overweight and obesity were higher in males than in females, and childhood overweight and obesity resulted in much higher indirect costs than direct healthcare costs. Given the increased economic burden, additional efforts and resources should be allocated to support sustainable and scalable childhood obesity programs.
Topics: Male; Female; Humans; Child; Pediatric Obesity; Overweight; Financial Stress; Health Care Costs; Health Expenditures; Cost of Illness
PubMed: 36437105
DOI: 10.1111/obr.13535 -
EClinicalMedicine Apr 2022Vision impairment (VI) can have wide ranging economic impact on individuals, households, and health systems. The aim of this systematic review was to describe and... (Review)
Review
Vision impairment (VI) can have wide ranging economic impact on individuals, households, and health systems. The aim of this systematic review was to describe and summarise the costs associated with VI and its major causes. We searched MEDLINE (16 November 2019), National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database, the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects and the Health Technology Assessment database (12 December 2019) for partial or full economic evaluation studies, published between 1 January 2000 and the search dates, reporting cost data for participants with VI due to an unspecified cause or one of the seven leading causes globally: cataract, uncorrected refractive error, diabetic retinopathy, glaucoma, age-related macular degeneration, corneal opacity, trachoma. The search was repeated on 20 January 2022 to identify studies published since our initial search. Included studies were quality appraised using the British Medical Journal Checklist for economic submissions adapted for cost of illness studies. Results were synthesized in a structured narrative. Of the 138 included studies, 38 reported cost estimates for VI due to an unspecified cause and 100 reported costs for one of the leading causes. These 138 studies provided 155 regional cost estimates. Fourteen studies reported global data; 103/155 (66%) regional estimates were from high-income countries. Costs were most commonly reported using a societal ( = 48) or healthcare system perspective ( = 25). Most studies included only a limited number of cost components. Large variations in methodology and reporting across studies meant cost estimates varied considerably. The average quality assessment score was 78% (range 35-100%); the most common weaknesses were the lack of sensitivity analysis and insufficient disaggregation of costs. There was substantial variation across studies in average treatment costs per patient for most conditions, including refractive error correction (range $12-$201 ppp), cataract surgery (range $54-$3654 ppp), glaucoma (range $351-$1354 ppp) and AMD (range $2209-$7524 ppp). Future cost estimates of the economic burden of VI and its major causes will be improved by the development and adoption of a reference case for eye health. This could then be used in regular studies, particularly in countries with data gaps, including low- and middle-income countries in Asia, Eastern Europe, Oceania, Latin America and sub-Saharan Africa.
PubMed: 35340626
DOI: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2022.101354 -
Advances in Therapy Sep 2022Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing triple therapies (inhaled corticosteroid [ICS], long-acting β-agonist [LABA], and long-acting muscarinic antagonist... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
INTRODUCTION
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing triple therapies (inhaled corticosteroid [ICS], long-acting β-agonist [LABA], and long-acting muscarinic antagonist [LAMA]) for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are limited. This network meta-analysis (NMA) investigated the comparative efficacy of single-inhaler fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) versus any triple (ICS/LABA/LAMA) combinations and dual therapies in patients with COPD.
METHODS
This NMA was conducted on the basis of a systematic literature review (SLR), which identified RCTs in adults aged at least 40 years with COPD. The RCTs compared different ICS/LABA/LAMA combinations or an ICS/LABA/LAMA combination with any dual therapy (ICS/LABA or LAMA/LABA). Outcomes of interest included forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV), annualized rate of combined moderate and severe exacerbations, St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score and SGRQ responders, transition dyspnea index focal score, and rescue medication use (RMU). Analyses were conducted at 24 weeks (primary endpoint), and 12 and 52 weeks (if feasible).
RESULTS
The NMA was informed by five trials reporting FEV at 24 weeks. FF/UMEC/VI was statistically significantly more effective at increasing trough FEV (based on change from baseline) than all triple comparators in the network apart from UMEC + FF/VI. The NMA was informed by 17 trials reporting moderate or severe exacerbation endpoints. FF/UMEC/VI demonstrated statistically significant improvements in annualized rate of combined moderate or severe exacerbations versus single-inhaler budesonide/glycopyrronium bromide/formoterol fumarate (BUD/GLY/FOR). At 24 weeks, the NMA was informed by five trials. FF/UMEC/VI showed statistically significant improvements in annualized rate of combined moderate or severe exacerbations versus UMEC + FF/VI and BUD/GLY/FOR. FF/UMEC/VI also demonstrated improvements in mean SGRQ score versus other triple therapy comparators at 24 weeks, and a significant reduction in RMU compared with BUD/GLY/FOR (160/18/9.6).
CONCLUSION
The findings of this NMA suggest favorable efficacy with single-inhaler triple therapy comprising FF/UMEC/VI. Further analysis is required as additional evidence becomes available.
Topics: Administration, Inhalation; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Adult; Androstadienes; Benzyl Alcohols; Bronchodilator Agents; Budesonide, Formoterol Fumarate Drug Combination; Chlorobenzenes; Drug Combinations; Fluticasone; Humans; Muscarinic Antagonists; Network Meta-Analysis; Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive; Quinuclidines
PubMed: 35849317
DOI: 10.1007/s12325-022-02231-0 -
Archives of Physical Medicine and... Jan 2021To present recent evidence on the prevalence, incidence, costs, activity limitations, and work limitations of common conditions requiring rehabilitation.
A Systematic Review of the Incidence, Prevalence, Costs, and Activity and Work Limitations of Amputation, Osteoarthritis, Rheumatoid Arthritis, Back Pain, Multiple Sclerosis, Spinal Cord Injury, Stroke, and Traumatic Brain Injury in the United States: A 2019 Update.
OBJECTIVES
To present recent evidence on the prevalence, incidence, costs, activity limitations, and work limitations of common conditions requiring rehabilitation.
DATA SOURCES
Medline (PubMed), SCOPUS, Web of Science, and the gray literature were searched for relevant articles about amputation, osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, back pain, multiple sclerosis, spinal cord injury, stroke, and traumatic brain injury.
STUDY SELECTION
Relevant articles (N=106) were included.
DATA EXTRACTION
Two investigators independently reviewed articles and selected relevant articles for inclusion. Quality grading was performed using the Methodological Evaluation of Observational Research Checklist and Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Form.
DATA SYNTHESIS
The prevalence of back pain in the past 3 months was 33.9% among community-dwelling adults, and patients with back pain contribute $365 billion in all-cause medical costs. Osteoarthritis is the next most prevalent condition (approximately 10.4%), and patients with this condition contribute $460 billion in all-cause medical costs. These 2 conditions are the most prevalent and costly (medically) of the illnesses explored in this study. Stroke follows these conditions in both prevalence (2.5%-3.7%) and medical costs ($28 billion). Other conditions may have a lower prevalence but are associated with relatively higher per capita effects.
CONCLUSIONS
Consistent with previous findings, back pain and osteoarthritis are the most prevalent conditions with high aggregate medical costs. By contrast, other conditions have a lower prevalence or cost but relatively higher per capita costs and effects on activity and work. The data are extremely heterogeneous, which makes anything beyond broad comparisons challenging. Additional information is needed to determine the relative impact of each condition.
Topics: Absenteeism; Amputation, Surgical; Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Back Pain; Brain Injuries, Traumatic; Health Expenditures; Humans; Incidence; Multiple Sclerosis; Osteoarthritis; Physical Functional Performance; Prevalence; Spinal Cord Injuries; United States
PubMed: 32339483
DOI: 10.1016/j.apmr.2020.04.001 -
PloS One 2020Patients often have difficulty comprehending or recalling information given to them by their healthcare providers. Use of 'teach-back' has been shown to improve...
Patients often have difficulty comprehending or recalling information given to them by their healthcare providers. Use of 'teach-back' has been shown to improve patients' knowledge and self-care abilities, however there is little guidance for healthcare services seeking to embed teach-back in their setting. This review aims to synthesize evidence about the translation of teach-back into practice including mode of delivery, use of implementation strategies and effectiveness. We searched Ovid Medline, CINAHL, Embase and The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for studies reporting the use of teach-back as an educational intervention, published up to July 2019. Two reviewers independently extracted study data and assessed methodologic quality. Implementation strategies were extracted into distinct categories established in the Implementation Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) project. Overall, 20 studies of moderate quality were included in this review (four rated high, nine rated moderate, seven rated weak). Studies were heterogeneous in terms of setting, population and outcomes. In most studies (n = 15), teach-back was delivered as part of a simple and structured educational approach. Implementation strategies were infrequently reported (n = 10 studies). The most used implementation strategies were training and education of stakeholders (n = 8), support for clinicians (n = 6) and use of audits and provider feedback (n = 4). Use of teach-back proved effective in 19 of the 20 studies, ranging from learning-related outcomes (e.g. knowledge recall and retention) to objective health-related outcomes (e.g. hospital re-admissions, quality of life). Teach-back was found to be effective across a wide range of settings, populations and outcome measures. While its mode of delivery is well-defined, strategies to support its translation into practice are not often described. Use of implementation strategies such as training and education of stakeholders and supporting clinicians during implementation may improve the uptake and sustainability of teach-back and achieve positive outcomes.
Topics: Databases, Factual; Health Personnel; Health Services; Health Services Administration; Humans; Outcome Assessment, Health Care
PubMed: 32287296
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0231350 -
PLoS Medicine May 2021The prevention of mental disorders and promotion of mental health and well-being are growing fields. Whether mental health promotion and prevention interventions provide...
BACKGROUND
The 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 FINDINGS
Electronic 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.
CONCLUSIONS
Our 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 REGISTRATION
PROSPERO registration number: CRD42019127778.
Topics: Cost-Benefit Analysis; Health Promotion; Humans; Mental Disorders; Mental Health
PubMed: 33974641
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1003606 -
Medical Journal of the Islamic Republic... 2019Burnout is one of the main factors in reducing the performance quality among hospital staff. Appropriate interventions can reduce burnout among physicians and nurses...
Burnout is one of the main factors in reducing the performance quality among hospital staff. Appropriate interventions can reduce burnout among physicians and nurses and result in promotion of the quality of services provided at hospitals. The present study aimed to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the interventions on burnout reduction among hospital physicians and nurses. Studies were searched from January 2000 to June 2017 in PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane, and Web of Science. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and pretest-posttest studies that had interventions to reduce the burnout of physicians and nurses were included. However, studies conducted on medical and nursing students and nonmedical providers or beyond hospitals were excluded. Based on the study inclusion criteria, 12 RCTs and 6 pretest-posttest studies were included in the review. Most of the included studies were from Netherlands, the United States, and England. The interventions included team-based program, EMH-approach, and coping and communication skills training. Most of the interventions had a positive effect on burnout reduction. Nevertheless, some studies had no significant impact. The results showed that the most interventions used to improve burnout were improving communication skills, teamwork, participatory programs, and psychological interventions (Yoga, meditation, and mindfulness). The impact of these interventions can increase mental health in the long term. Burnout is a complicated problem and should be treated by combining interventions.
PubMed: 31696071
DOI: 10.34171/mjiri.33.77 -
Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases Jun 2020The past decades have seen rapid advances in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). In particular, the introduction of biologic and targeted synthetic...
BACKGROUND
The past decades have seen rapid advances in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). In particular, the introduction of biologic and targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs have improved clinical outcomes and reconfigured traditional RA cost compositions.
OBJECTIVES
To map the existing evidence concerning cost of illness of RA, as the treatment pathway evolves in the biologic era, and examine how costs have been measured and estimated, in order to assemble and appropriately interpret available data.
METHODS
Systematic review of studies that estimated the costs of patients with RA. Multiple electronic databases were searched to identify studies published between 2000 and 2019. The reported total costs and cost components were evaluated according to the study and population characteristics. The Cochran-Armitage test was used to determine statistically significant trends in increasing or decreasing proportions over time.
RESULTS
Overall, 72 studies were included. Drug costs compromised the main component (up to 87%) of direct costs with an increasing trajectory over time, although not statistically significant. The proportion of costs for hospitalisation showed a statistically significant decrease chronologically (p=0.044). Indirect costs, primarily associated with absenteeism and work disability accounted for 39% to 86% of total costs. The reported indirect costs are highly sensitive to the approach to estimation.
CONCLUSIONS
A decreasing trend in inpatient costs chronologically suggested a cost shift in other components of direct costs. Indirect costs still contributed a considerable proportion of total costs, with work disability being the main cost component. Economic analyses that do not incorporate or appropriately measure indirect costs will underestimate the full economic impact of RA.
Topics: Absenteeism; Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Biological Products; Cost of Illness; Disabled Persons; Drug Costs; Employment; Health Care Costs; Humans
PubMed: 32245893
DOI: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-216243 -
Endocrinology, Diabetes & Metabolism Nov 2022Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) is rapidly becoming a vital tool in the management of type 1 diabetes. Its use has been shown to improve glycaemic management and... (Review)
Review
Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) is rapidly becoming a vital tool in the management of type 1 diabetes. Its use has been shown to improve glycaemic management and reduce the risk of hypoglycaemic events. The cost of CGM remains a barrier to its widespread application. We aimed to identify and synthesize evidence about the cost-effectiveness of utilizing CGM in patients with type 1 diabetes. Studies were identified from MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Library from January 2010 to February 2022. Those that assessed the cost-effectiveness of CGM compared to self-monitored blood glucose (SMBG) in patients with type 1 diabetes and reported lifetime incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were included. Studies on critically ill or pregnant patients were excluded. Nineteen studies were identified. Most studies compared continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion and SMBG to a sensor-augmented pump (SAP). The estimated ICER range was [$18,734-$99,941] and the quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gain range was [0.76-2.99]. Use in patients with suboptimal management or greater hypoglycaemic risk revealed more homogenous results and lower ICERs. Limited studies assessed CGM in the context of multiple daily injections (MDI) (n = 4), MDI and SMBG versus SAP (n = 2) and three studies included hybrid closed-loop systems. Most studies (n = 17) concluded that CGM is a cost-effective tool. This systematic review suggests that CGM appears to be a cost-effective tool for individuals with type 1 diabetes. Cost-effectiveness is driven by reducing short- and long-term complications. Use in patients with suboptimal management or at risk of severe hypoglycaemia is most cost-effective.
Topics: Pregnancy; Female; Humans; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1; Blood Glucose; Blood Glucose Self-Monitoring; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Hypoglycemic Agents
PubMed: 36112608
DOI: 10.1002/edm2.369 -
CNS Drugs May 2021Long-acting injectable (LAI) antipsychotics, compared with oral antipsychotics (OA), have been found to significantly improve patient outcomes, including reduced... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
Real-World Evidence of the Clinical and Economic Impact of Long-Acting Injectable Versus Oral Antipsychotics Among Patients with Schizophrenia in the United States: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
BACKGROUND
Long-acting injectable (LAI) antipsychotics, compared with oral antipsychotics (OA), have been found to significantly improve patient outcomes, including reduced hospitalizations and emergency room (ER) admissions and increased medication adherence among adult patients with schizophrenia. In turn, the clinical benefits achieved may translate into lower economic burden. Real-world evidence of the comparative effectiveness of LAI is needed to understand the potential benefits of LAI outside of the context of clinical trials. This study aimed to provide a comprehensive synthesis of recent published real-world studies comparing healthcare utilization, costs, and adherence between patients with schizophrenia treated with LAI versus OA in the United States.
METHODS
In this systematic literature review, MEDLINE was searched for peer-reviewed, real-world studies (i.e., retrospective or pragmatic designs) published in English between January 1, 2010 and February 10, 2020. Comparative studies reporting hospitalizations, ER admissions, healthcare costs, or medication adherence (measured by proportion of days covered [PDC]) in adults with schizophrenia treated with LAI versus OA (or pre- vs post-LAI initiation) in the United States were retained. Random effects meta-analyses were conducted among eligible studies to evaluate the association of LAI versus OA use on hospitalizations, ER admissions, healthcare costs, and treatment adherence. A sensitivity analysis among the subset of studies that compared OA with paliperidone palmitate once monthly (PP1M), specifically, was conducted.
RESULTS
A total of 1083 articles were identified by the electronic literature search, and two publications were manually added subsequently. Among the 57 publications meeting the inclusion criteria, 25 provided sufficient information for inclusion in the meta-analyses. Compared with patients treated with OA, patients initiated on LAI had lower odds of hospitalization (odds ratio [OR] 0.62, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.54-0.71, n = 7), fewer hospitalizations (incidence rate ratio [IRR] [95% CI] 0.75 [0.65-0.88], n = 9), and fewer ER admissions (IRR [95% CI] 0.86 [0.77-0.97], n = 6). The initiation of LAI was associated with higher per-patient-per-year (PPPY) pharmacy costs (mean difference [MD] [95% CI] $5603 [3799-7407], n = 6), which was offset by lower PPPY medical costs (MD [95% CI] - $5404 [- 7745 to - 3064], n = 6), resulting in no significant net difference in PPPY total all-cause healthcare costs between patients treated with LAI and those treated with OA (MD [95% CI] $327 [- 1565 to 2219], n = 7). Patients initiated on LAI also had higher odds of being adherent to their medication (PDC ≥ 80%; OR [95% CI] 1.89 [1.52-2.35], n = 9). A sensitivity analysis on a subset of publications evaluating PP1M found results similar to those of the main analysis conducted at the LAI class level.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on multiple studies with varying sub-types of patient populations with schizophrenia in the United States published in the last decade, this meta-analysis demonstrated that LAI antipsychotics were associated with improved medication adherence and significant clinical benefit such as reduced hospitalizations and ER admissions compared with OA. The lower medical costs offset the higher pharmacy costs, resulting in a non-significant difference in total healthcare costs. Taken together, these findings provide strong evidence on the clinical and economic benefits of LAI compared with OA for the treatment of schizophrenia in the real world.
Topics: Antipsychotic Agents; Delayed-Action Preparations; Emergency Service, Hospital; Health Care Costs; Hospitalization; Humans; Injections; Medication Adherence; Schizophrenia; United States
PubMed: 33909272
DOI: 10.1007/s40263-021-00815-y