Health Economic Modelling of Treatment Sequences for Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Systematic Review

The objective of the work reported in this paper was to critically assess how sequential disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) have been modelled in the context of economic evaluation of the use of DMARDs for treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). A secondary purpose was to identify the methodological challenges of modelling sequential therapies. Systematic searches of 10 databases were undertaken in February 2013. Studies were included if they were in the English language and a full comparative economic evaluation was reported. They were appraised by use of the Drummond checklist (Appendix to this paper). Data extracted included economic evaluation data, data relating to sequential treatment, and data on the modelling methods used. Fifty-seven studies were identified, with 25 (44 %) modelling a sequence of treatments. Forty-three (75 %) were cost–utility analyses. Eleven (19 %) were UK studies and 11 (19 %) were US. The remainder were mainly European (26 (46 %)). A distinction was made between studies of recent-onset RA (14 (25 %)) and those of established RA (42 (74 %)). One study (1 %) was unclear. Individual-level models were more likely to meet the Drummond criteria and evaluate sequences. No study identified an optimum sequence of multiple treatments given a set of treatment options. The level of reporting of the methods and evidence used to assess the effect of downstream treatments in the sequence was generally poor. When lifelong models and downstream treatment sequences were considered, evidence gaps were identified. The review discovered that methods have not been consistently applied, leading to varied estimates of cost-effectiveness. Treatment sequences have not been fully considered and modelled, potentially resulting in inaccurate estimates of cost-effectiveness

Is complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) cost-effective? a systematic review

BACKGROUND: Out-of-pocket expenditures of over $34 billion per year in the US are an apparent testament to a widely held belief that complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) therapies have benefits that outweigh their costs. However, regardless of public opinion, there is often little more than anecdotal evidence on the health and economic implications of CAM therapies. The objectives of this study are to present an overview of economic evaluation and to expand upon a previous review to examine the current scope and quality of CAM economic evaluations. METHODS: The data sources used were Medline, AMED, Alt-HealthWatch, and the Complementary and Alternative Medicine Citation Index; January 1999 to October 2004. Papers that reported original data on specific CAM therapies from any form of standard economic analysis were included. Full economic evaluations were subjected to two types of quality review. The first was a 35-item checklist for reporting quality, and the second was a set of four criteria for study quality (randomization, prospective collection of economic data, comparison to usual care, and no blinding). RESULTS: A total of 56 economic evaluations (39 full evaluations) of CAM were found covering a range of therapies applied to a variety of conditions. The reporting quality of the full evaluations was poor for certain items, but was comparable to the quality found by systematic reviews of economic evaluations in conventional medicine. Regarding study quality, 14 (36%) studies were found to meet all four criteria. These exemplary studies indicate CAM therapies that may be considered cost-effective compared to usual care for various conditions: acupuncture for migraine, manual therapy for neck pain, spa therapy for Parkinson's, self-administered stress management for cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy, pre- and post-operative oral nutritional supplementation for lower gastrointestinal tract surgery, biofeedback for patients with "functional" disorders (eg, irritable bowel syndrome), and guided imagery, relaxation therapy, and potassium-rich diet for cardiac patients. CONCLUSION: Whereas the number and quality of economic evaluations of CAM have increased in recent years and more CAM therapies have been shown to be of good value, the majority of CAM therapies still remain to be evaluated

A systematic review of randomised controlled trials assessing effectiveness of prosthetic and orthotic interventions.

BACKGROUND: Assistive products are items which allow older people and people with disabilities to be able to live a healthy, productive and dignified life. It has been estimated that approximately 1.5% of the world's population need a prosthesis or orthosis. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to systematically identify and review the evidence from randomized controlled trials assessing effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of prosthetic and orthotic interventions. METHODS: Literature searches, completed in September 2015, were carried out in fourteen databases between years 1995 and 2015. The search results were independently screened by two reviewers. For the purpose of this manuscript, only randomized controlled trials which examined interventions using orthotic or prosthetic devices were selected for data extraction and synthesis. RESULTS: A total of 342 randomised controlled trials were identified (319 English language and 23 non-English language). Only 4 of these randomised controlled trials examined prosthetic interventions and the rest examined orthotic interventions. These orthotic interventions were categorised based on the medical conditions/injuries of the participants. From these studies, this review focused on the medical condition/injuries with the highest number of randomised controlled trials (osteoarthritis, fracture, stroke, carpal tunnel syndrome, plantar fasciitis, anterior cruciate ligament, diabetic foot, rheumatoid and juvenile idiopathic arthritis, ankle sprain, cerebral palsy, lateral epicondylitis and low back pain). The included articles were assessed for risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Details of the clinical population examined, the type of orthotic/prosthetic intervention, the comparator/s and the outcome measures were extracted. Effect sizes and odds ratios were calculated for all outcome measures, where possible. CONCLUSIONS: At present, for prosthetic and orthotic interventions, the scientific literature does not provide sufficient high quality research to allow strong conclusions on their effectiveness and cost-effectiveness