重新思考结核病发病率的量化:对成本效益分析中结核病残疾权重的系统性回顾和批判性评估》(A Systematic Review and Critical Appraisal of TB Disability Weights in Cost-Effectiveness Analyses)。

IF 4.4 3区 医学 Q1 ECONOMICS PharmacoEconomics Pub Date : 2024-08-07 DOI:10.1007/s40273-024-01410-x
Ewan M Tomeny, Thomas Hampton, Phuong Bich Tran, Laura Rosu, Mphatso D Phiri, Kathryn A Haigh, Jasper Nidoi, Tom Wingfield, Eve Worrall
{"title":"重新思考结核病发病率的量化:对成本效益分析中结核病残疾权重的系统性回顾和批判性评估》(A Systematic Review and Critical Appraisal of TB Disability Weights in Cost-Effectiveness Analyses)。","authors":"Ewan M Tomeny, Thomas Hampton, Phuong Bich Tran, Laura Rosu, Mphatso D Phiri, Kathryn A Haigh, Jasper Nidoi, Tom Wingfield, Eve Worrall","doi":"10.1007/s40273-024-01410-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The disability-adjusted life year (DALY), a key metric for health resource allocation, encompasses morbidity through disability weights. Widely used in tuberculosis cost-effectiveness analysis (CEAs), DALYs play a significant role in informing intervention adopt/reject decisions. This study reviews the values and consistency of disability weights applied in tuberculosis-related CEAs.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a systematic review using the Tufts CEA database, updated to July 2023 with searches in Embase, Scopus and PubMed. Eligible studies needed to have included a cost-per-DALY ratio, and additionally either evaluated a tuberculosis (TB) intervention or included tuberculosis-related weights. We considered all tuberculosis health states: with/without human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) coinfection, TB treatments and treatment side effects. Data were screened and extracted independently by combinations of two authors.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>A total of 105 studies spanning 2002-2023 across 50 countries (mainly low- and middle-income countries) were extracted. Disability weights were sourced primarily from the Global Burden of Disease (GBD; 100/165; 61%), with 17 non-GBD studies additionally referenced, along with primary derivation. Inconsistencies in the utilisation of weights were evident: of the 100 usages of GBD-sourced weights, only in 47 instances (47%) had the weight value been explicitly specified with an appropriate up-to-date reference cited (constituting 28% of all weight usages, 47/165). Sensitivity analyses on weight values had been conducted in 30% of studies (31/105). Twelve studies did not clearly specify weights or their sources; nine further calculated DALYs without morbidity. The review suggests methodological gaps in current approaches for representing important aspects of TB, including TB-HIV coinfection, treatment, drug-resistance, extrapulmonary TB and psychological impacts. We propose a set of best practice recommendations.</p><p><strong>Interpretation: </strong>There is a need for increased rigour in the application, sensitivity testing and reporting of TB disability weights. Furthermore, there appears a desire among researchers to reflect elements of the tuberculosis experience beyond those allowed for by GBD disability weights.</p>","PeriodicalId":19807,"journal":{"name":"PharmacoEconomics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Rethinking Tuberculosis Morbidity Quantification: A Systematic Review and Critical Appraisal of TB Disability Weights in Cost-Effectiveness Analyses.\",\"authors\":\"Ewan M Tomeny, Thomas Hampton, Phuong Bich Tran, Laura Rosu, Mphatso D Phiri, Kathryn A Haigh, Jasper Nidoi, Tom Wingfield, Eve Worrall\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s40273-024-01410-x\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The disability-adjusted life year (DALY), a key metric for health resource allocation, encompasses morbidity through disability weights. Widely used in tuberculosis cost-effectiveness analysis (CEAs), DALYs play a significant role in informing intervention adopt/reject decisions. This study reviews the values and consistency of disability weights applied in tuberculosis-related CEAs.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a systematic review using the Tufts CEA database, updated to July 2023 with searches in Embase, Scopus and PubMed. Eligible studies needed to have included a cost-per-DALY ratio, and additionally either evaluated a tuberculosis (TB) intervention or included tuberculosis-related weights. We considered all tuberculosis health states: with/without human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) coinfection, TB treatments and treatment side effects. Data were screened and extracted independently by combinations of two authors.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>A total of 105 studies spanning 2002-2023 across 50 countries (mainly low- and middle-income countries) were extracted. Disability weights were sourced primarily from the Global Burden of Disease (GBD; 100/165; 61%), with 17 non-GBD studies additionally referenced, along with primary derivation. Inconsistencies in the utilisation of weights were evident: of the 100 usages of GBD-sourced weights, only in 47 instances (47%) had the weight value been explicitly specified with an appropriate up-to-date reference cited (constituting 28% of all weight usages, 47/165). Sensitivity analyses on weight values had been conducted in 30% of studies (31/105). Twelve studies did not clearly specify weights or their sources; nine further calculated DALYs without morbidity. The review suggests methodological gaps in current approaches for representing important aspects of TB, including TB-HIV coinfection, treatment, drug-resistance, extrapulmonary TB and psychological impacts. We propose a set of best practice recommendations.</p><p><strong>Interpretation: </strong>There is a need for increased rigour in the application, sensitivity testing and reporting of TB disability weights. Furthermore, there appears a desire among researchers to reflect elements of the tuberculosis experience beyond those allowed for by GBD disability weights.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19807,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"PharmacoEconomics\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"PharmacoEconomics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-024-01410-x\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PharmacoEconomics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-024-01410-x","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:残疾调整生命年(DALY)是卫生资源分配的一个关键指标,包括发病率和残疾权重。残疾调整生命年被广泛应用于结核病成本效益分析(CEAs)中,在决定是否采用干预措施方面发挥着重要作用。本研究回顾了结核病相关成本效益分析中采用的残疾权重的价值和一致性:我们使用塔夫茨 CEA 数据库进行了系统性回顾,并在 Embase、Scopus 和 PubMed 中进行了检索,数据库更新至 2023 年 7 月。符合条件的研究必须包含每DALY成本比,并对结核病(TB)干预措施进行评估或包含结核病相关权重。我们考虑了所有结核病的健康状态:合并/不合并人类免疫缺陷病毒(HIV)感染、结核病治疗和治疗副作用。数据由两位作者独立筛选和提取:共提取了 50 个国家(主要是中低收入国家)2002-2023 年间的 105 项研究数据。残疾权重主要来自《全球疾病负担》(GBD;100/165;61%),另外还参考了 17 项非 GBD 研究以及主要推导结果。权重使用的不一致性非常明显:在 100 次使用全球疾病负担(GBD)来源权重中,只有 47 次(47%)明确说明了权重值,并引用了适当的最新参考资料(占所有权重使用的 28%,47/165)。30%的研究(31/105)对权重值进行了敏感性分析。12 项研究未明确说明权重或权重来源;9 项研究进一步计算了无发病率的 DALY。综述表明,目前在表示结核病重要方面(包括结核病-艾滋病毒合并感染、治疗、耐药性、肺外结核病和心理影响)的方法上存在差距。我们提出了一套最佳实践建议:在结核病残疾权重的应用、敏感性测试和报告方面需要更加严格。此外,研究人员似乎希望反映结核病经历中超出 GBD 残疾权重允许范围的因素。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Rethinking Tuberculosis Morbidity Quantification: A Systematic Review and Critical Appraisal of TB Disability Weights in Cost-Effectiveness Analyses.

Background: The disability-adjusted life year (DALY), a key metric for health resource allocation, encompasses morbidity through disability weights. Widely used in tuberculosis cost-effectiveness analysis (CEAs), DALYs play a significant role in informing intervention adopt/reject decisions. This study reviews the values and consistency of disability weights applied in tuberculosis-related CEAs.

Methods: We conducted a systematic review using the Tufts CEA database, updated to July 2023 with searches in Embase, Scopus and PubMed. Eligible studies needed to have included a cost-per-DALY ratio, and additionally either evaluated a tuberculosis (TB) intervention or included tuberculosis-related weights. We considered all tuberculosis health states: with/without human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) coinfection, TB treatments and treatment side effects. Data were screened and extracted independently by combinations of two authors.

Findings: A total of 105 studies spanning 2002-2023 across 50 countries (mainly low- and middle-income countries) were extracted. Disability weights were sourced primarily from the Global Burden of Disease (GBD; 100/165; 61%), with 17 non-GBD studies additionally referenced, along with primary derivation. Inconsistencies in the utilisation of weights were evident: of the 100 usages of GBD-sourced weights, only in 47 instances (47%) had the weight value been explicitly specified with an appropriate up-to-date reference cited (constituting 28% of all weight usages, 47/165). Sensitivity analyses on weight values had been conducted in 30% of studies (31/105). Twelve studies did not clearly specify weights or their sources; nine further calculated DALYs without morbidity. The review suggests methodological gaps in current approaches for representing important aspects of TB, including TB-HIV coinfection, treatment, drug-resistance, extrapulmonary TB and psychological impacts. We propose a set of best practice recommendations.

Interpretation: There is a need for increased rigour in the application, sensitivity testing and reporting of TB disability weights. Furthermore, there appears a desire among researchers to reflect elements of the tuberculosis experience beyond those allowed for by GBD disability weights.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
PharmacoEconomics
PharmacoEconomics 医学-药学
CiteScore
8.10
自引率
9.10%
发文量
85
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: PharmacoEconomics is the benchmark journal for peer-reviewed, authoritative and practical articles on the application of pharmacoeconomics and quality-of-life assessment to optimum drug therapy and health outcomes. An invaluable source of applied pharmacoeconomic original research and educational material for the healthcare decision maker. PharmacoEconomics is dedicated to the clear communication of complex pharmacoeconomic issues related to patient care and drug utilization. PharmacoEconomics offers a range of additional features designed to increase the visibility, readership and educational value of the journal’s content. Each article is accompanied by a Key Points summary, giving a time-efficient overview of the content to a wide readership. Articles may be accompanied by plain language summaries to assist readers who have some knowledge of, but not in-depth expertise in, the area to understand the scientific content and overall implications of the article.
期刊最新文献
Design and Features of Pricing and Payment Schemes for Health Technologies: A Scoping Review and a Proposal for a Flexible Need-Driven Classification. Economic Burden Associated with Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension in the United States. The Impact of Tocilizumab Coverage on Health Equity for Inpatients with COVID-19 in the USA: A Distributional Cost-Effectiveness Analysis. Managed Entry Agreements for High-Cost, One-Off Potentially Curative Therapies: A Framework and Calculation Tool to Determine Their Suitability. How Much Better is Faster? Empirical Tests of QALY Assumptions in Health-Outcome Sequences.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1