Pharmacoeconomic Evaluation of Costs of Myelomeningocele and Meningocele Treatment and Screening.

IF 2.1 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research Pub Date : 2024-02-09 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.2147/CEOR.S443120
Malvina Hoxha, Visar Malaj, Bruno Zappacosta, Najada Firza
{"title":"Pharmacoeconomic Evaluation of Costs of Myelomeningocele and Meningocele Treatment and Screening.","authors":"Malvina Hoxha, Visar Malaj, Bruno Zappacosta, Najada Firza","doi":"10.2147/CEOR.S443120","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The prevention of myelomeningocele (MMC) and meningocele (MC) is a public health concern. A systematic review on economic factors associated with MMC and MC can help the policy makers to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of screening and treatment. To our knowledge, this is the first systematic review to provide up-to date pharmacoeconomic evidence of all economic studies present in literature on different aspects of MMC and MC.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched in the National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database (NHSEED), PubMed, Cost-effectiveness Analysis Registry (CEA Registry), Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD), Health Technology Assessment Database (HTAD), Cochrane Library, and Econlit. The PRISMA guidelines were followed in the search and evaluation of literature. Only articles in English not limited by the year of publication that fulfilled the eligibility criteria were included in this systematic review.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Nineteen papers were included in the study. The studies were very heterogeneous and reported a comparison of the costs between prenatal versus postnatal repair, the cost of fetoscopic approach versus open surgery, the cost of ventriculoperitoneal shunting (VPS) versus endoscopic third ventriculostomy (ETV), and ETV with choroid plexus cauterization (ETV/CPC), the cost of hospitalization, and the cost of diagnosis for MMC.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The results of this study can help in implementing new policies in different countries to assist MC and MMC patients with the cost of treatment and screening.</p>","PeriodicalId":47313,"journal":{"name":"ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10863461/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/CEOR.S443120","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The prevention of myelomeningocele (MMC) and meningocele (MC) is a public health concern. A systematic review on economic factors associated with MMC and MC can help the policy makers to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of screening and treatment. To our knowledge, this is the first systematic review to provide up-to date pharmacoeconomic evidence of all economic studies present in literature on different aspects of MMC and MC.

Methods: We searched in the National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database (NHSEED), PubMed, Cost-effectiveness Analysis Registry (CEA Registry), Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD), Health Technology Assessment Database (HTAD), Cochrane Library, and Econlit. The PRISMA guidelines were followed in the search and evaluation of literature. Only articles in English not limited by the year of publication that fulfilled the eligibility criteria were included in this systematic review.

Results: Nineteen papers were included in the study. The studies were very heterogeneous and reported a comparison of the costs between prenatal versus postnatal repair, the cost of fetoscopic approach versus open surgery, the cost of ventriculoperitoneal shunting (VPS) versus endoscopic third ventriculostomy (ETV), and ETV with choroid plexus cauterization (ETV/CPC), the cost of hospitalization, and the cost of diagnosis for MMC.

Conclusion: The results of this study can help in implementing new policies in different countries to assist MC and MMC patients with the cost of treatment and screening.

髓鞘膜积液和鞘膜积液治疗和筛查成本的药物经济学评估。
背景:预防脊髓膜膨出症(MMC)和脑膜膨出症(MC)是一项公共卫生问题。对与脊髓膜膨出症和脑膜膨出症相关的经济因素进行系统回顾,有助于政策制定者评估筛查和治疗的成本效益。据我们所知,这是第一篇系统性综述,它提供了最新的药物经济学证据,囊括了文献中关于马大夫畸形和马大夫畸形不同方面的所有经济学研究:我们在国家卫生服务经济评估数据库(NHSEED)、PubMed、成本效益分析注册中心(CEA Registry)、评论与传播中心(CRD)、卫生技术评估数据库(HTAD)、Cochrane 图书馆和 Econlit 中进行了检索。在检索和评估文献时遵循了 PRISMA 指南。本系统综述只纳入符合资格标准的英文文章,不受发表年份的限制:本研究共纳入 19 篇论文。结果:19 篇论文被纳入本研究。这些研究的内容非常不一致,报告了产前修复与产后修复的费用比较、胎儿镜方法与开放手术的费用比较、脑室腹腔分流术(VPS)与内镜下第三脑室造口术(ETV)的费用比较、内镜下第三脑室造口术与脉络丛烧灼术(ETV/CPC)的费用比较、MMC 的住院费用和诊断费用:本研究的结果有助于各国实施新政策,帮助脑血管疾病和脑积水患者支付治疗和筛查费用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research
ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
83
审稿时长
16 weeks
文献相关原料
公司名称 产品信息 采购帮参考价格
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信