IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharme/v39y2021i11d10.1007_s40273-021-01072-z.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Use of Cost-Effectiveness Analysis in Sickle Cell Disease: A Critical Review of the Literature

Author

Listed:
  • Boshen Jiao

    (University of Washington)

  • Anirban Basu

    (University of Washington
    University of Washington)

  • Joshua Roth

    (Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center)

  • M. Bender

    (University of Washington
    Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center)

  • Ilsa Rovira

    (National Institutes of Health)

  • Traci Clemons

    (The Emmes Company, LLC)

  • Dalyna Quach

    (University of Washington)

  • Scott Ramsey

    (University of Washington
    Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center)

  • Beth Devine

    (University of Washington
    University of Washington)

Abstract

Novel interventions for sickle cell disease (SCD) bring hope to patients, yet concern about the associated economic costs exists. Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) uses standardized methods, with robust underpinnings in health economics, to estimate the value of these interventions compared with usual care. However, because of the complexity and lifetime trajectory of SCD, CEAs are challenging to conduct. The objectives of this rapid review were to summarize the main characteristics, components, and results of published CEAs of existing interventions for SCD, identify research gaps, and provide directions for future analyses. We identified records through searches of bibliographic databases, from reference lists of relevant review articles, and through consultation with experts. A total of 13 CEAs met our inclusion criteria and were qualitatively synthesized. These evaluated blood transfusions (n = 2), hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (n = 1), pharmaceuticals (n = 2), hypothetical cell or genetic therapy (n = 1), screening programs (n = 4), and interventions for SCD treatment complications (n = 3). A limited number of potential SCD and treatment complications were evaluated. No study adopted a societal perspective in the base case, six studies examined lifetime cost-effectiveness, seven studies employed a Markov or discrete-event simulation model, and eight studies used an outcome metric that captured both quality and length of life. To better compare the value of emerging and current therapies, future CEAs should adopt a societal perspective incorporating both medical and nonmedical costs, comprehensively model SCD complexity using robust health economic simulation models over the patient’s entire lifespan, and capture the intervention’s effect on both survival and quality of life.

Suggested Citation

  • Boshen Jiao & Anirban Basu & Joshua Roth & M. Bender & Ilsa Rovira & Traci Clemons & Dalyna Quach & Scott Ramsey & Beth Devine, 2021. "The Use of Cost-Effectiveness Analysis in Sickle Cell Disease: A Critical Review of the Literature," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 39(11), pages 1225-1241, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:39:y:2021:i:11:d:10.1007_s40273-021-01072-z
    DOI: 10.1007/s40273-021-01072-z
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40273-021-01072-z
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40273-021-01072-z?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Don Husereau & Michael Drummond & Stavros Petrou & Chris Carswell & David Moher & Dan Greenberg & Federico Augustovski & Andrew Briggs & Josephine Mauskopf & Elizabeth Loder, 2013. "Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) Statement," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 31(5), pages 361-367, May.
    2. David Moher & Alessandro Liberati & Jennifer Tetzlaff & Douglas G Altman & The PRISMA Group, 2009. "Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(7), pages 1-6, July.
    3. Paul T E Cusack, 2020. "On Pain," Biomedical Journal of Scientific & Technical Research, Biomedical Research Network+, LLC, vol. 31(3), pages 24253-24254, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Thomas Grochtdreis & Hans-Helmut König & Alexander Dobruschkin & Gunhild von Amsberg & Judith Dams, 2018. "Cost-effectiveness analyses and cost analyses in castration-resistant prostate cancer: A systematic review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(12), pages 1-25, December.
    2. Neily Zakiyah & Antoinette D I van Asselt & Frank Roijmans & Maarten J Postma, 2016. "Economic Evaluation of Family Planning Interventions in Low and Middle Income Countries; A Systematic Review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(12), pages 1-19, December.
    3. Huajie Jin & Paul Tappenden & Stewart Robinson & Evanthia Achilla & David Aceituno & Sarah Byford, 2020. "Systematic review of the methods of health economic models assessing antipsychotic medication for schizophrenia," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(7), pages 1-18, July.
    4. S. Rajsic & H. Gothe & H. H. Borba & G. Sroczynski & J. Vujicic & T. Toell & Uwe Siebert, 2019. "Economic burden of stroke: a systematic review on post-stroke care," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(1), pages 107-134, February.
    5. B Ekman & H Nero & L S Lohmander & L E Dahlberg, 2020. "Costing analysis of a digital first-line treatment platform for patients with knee and hip osteoarthritis in Sweden," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(8), pages 1-12, August.
    6. Susanne Mayer & Noemi Kiss & Agata Łaszewska & Judit Simon, 2017. "Costing evidence for health care decision-making in Austria: A systematic review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(8), pages 1-18, August.
    7. Brigid M Gillespie & Claudia Bull & Rachel Walker & Frances Lin & Shelley Roberts & Wendy Chaboyer, 2018. "Quality appraisal of clinical guidelines for surgical site infection prevention: A systematic review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(9), pages 1-17, September.
    8. K. Achtert & L. Kerkemeyer, 2021. "The economic burden of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: a systematic review," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 22(8), pages 1151-1166, November.
    9. Carmen Selva-Sevilla & F Dámaso Fernández-Ginés & Manuel Cortiñas-Sáenz & Manuel Gerónimo-Pardo, 2021. "Cost-effectiveness analysis of domiciliary topical sevoflurane for painful leg ulcers," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(9), pages 1-18, September.
    10. Sarah J Iribarren & Kenrick Cato & Louise Falzon & Patricia W Stone, 2017. "What is the economic evidence for mHealth? A systematic review of economic evaluations of mHealth solutions," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(2), pages 1-20, February.
    11. Clara Marquina & Ella Zomer & Sandra Vargas-Torres & Sophia Zoungas & Richard Ofori-Asenso & Danny Liew & Zanfina Ademi, 2020. "Novel Treatment Strategies for Secondary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease: A Systematic Review of Cost-Effectiveness," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 38(10), pages 1095-1113, October.
    12. João Pedro Steinhauser Motta & Ricardo E Steffen & Caroliny Samary Lobato & Vanessa Souza Mendonça & José Roberto Lapa e Silva, 2020. "Endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration versus mediastinoscopy for mediastinal staging of lung cancer: A systematic review of economic evaluation studies," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(6), pages 1-15, June.
    13. Cochrane, M. & Watson, P.M. & Timpson, H. & Haycox, A. & Collins, B. & Jones, L. & Martin, A. & Graves, L.E.F., 2019. "Systematic review of the methods used in economic evaluations of targeted physical activity and sedentary behaviour interventions," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 232(C), pages 156-167.
    14. Alexander Schniedermann, 2021. "A comparison of systematic reviews and guideline-based systematic reviews in medical studies," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(12), pages 9829-9846, December.
    15. Brenda Cardoso & Luiza Cunha & Adriana Leiras & Paulo Gonçalves & Hugo Yoshizaki & Irineu de Brito Junior & Frederico Pedroso, 2021. "Causal Impacts of Epidemics and Pandemics on Food Supply Chains: A Systematic Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(17), pages 1-28, August.
    16. Jeroen T J M van Dijck & Mark D Dijkman & Robbin H Ophuis & Godard C W de Ruiter & Wilco C Peul & Suzanne Polinder, 2019. "In-hospital costs after severe traumatic brain injury: A systematic review and quality assessment," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(5), pages 1-21, May.
    17. Marufa Sultana & Abdur Razzaque Sarker & Nausad Ali & Raisul Akram & Lisa Gold, 2019. "Economic evaluation of community acquired pneumonia management strategies: A systematic review of literature," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(10), pages 1-21, October.
    18. Rashidul Alam Mahumud & Khorshed Alam & Syed Afroz Keramat & Gail M Ormsby & Jeff Dunn & Jeff Gow, 2020. "Cost-effectiveness evaluations of the 9-Valent human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine: Evidence from a systematic review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(6), pages 1-15, June.
    19. Holger Möller & Fiona Haigh & Rema Hayek & Lennert Veerman, 2020. "What Is the Best Practice Method for Quantifying the Health and Economic Benefits of Active Transport?," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(17), pages 1-16, August.
    20. Finkelstein, Eric A. & Bilger, Marcel & Baid, Drishti, 2019. "Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of incentives as a tool for prevention of non-communicable diseases: A systematic review," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 232(C), pages 340-350.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:39:y:2021:i:11:d:10.1007_s40273-021-01072-z. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.