Cost and Cost-Effectiveness of the Management Strategies of Chronic Urticaria: A Systematic Review.

IF 11.5 1区 医学 Q1 DERMATOLOGY
Surapon Nochaiwong, Mati Chuamanochan, Chidchanok Ruengorn, Ratanaporn Awiphan, Jonathan A Bernstein, Kednapa Thavorn
{"title":"Cost and Cost-Effectiveness of the Management Strategies of Chronic Urticaria: A Systematic Review.","authors":"Surapon Nochaiwong, Mati Chuamanochan, Chidchanok Ruengorn, Ratanaporn Awiphan, Jonathan A Bernstein, Kednapa Thavorn","doi":"10.1001/jamadermatol.2024.2863","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Importance: </strong>Although treatment for chronic urticaria (CU) has improved over the past decades, evidence regarding costs and net benefits associated with these treatment strategies have yet to be comprehensively characterized and synthesized.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To summarize the cost and cost-effectiveness of CU management strategies.</p><p><strong>Evidence review: </strong>An extensive systematic literature search of 6 databases (MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed Cochrane, Scopus, and CINAHL) and gray literature sources, without language restriction, was conducted and updated to March 23, 2024. Articles that performed cost analysis or full economic evaluation among patients with CU were included. Two reviewers independently extracted data, such as annual costs of health care services or incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). All monetary values were converted and inflated to 2023 US dollars. Evidence-based synthesis for health benefit was judged using the Evidence Rating Matrix by the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>Seventeen unique studies (11 cost analysis studies and 6 full economic evaluations) were included. With the wide variation in health care resources, services that included biologic omalizumab utilization had higher annual health care cost estimations for CU management than services that did not include omalizumab prescription (median [IQR] cost, $6933 [$5988-$8717] vs $5621 [$2488-$8754]). The biologic omalizumab, 300 mg, for H1 antihistamine-refractory chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) (3 studies) was found to have a median (IQR) ICER of $89 005 ($36 058-$145 694) per QALY (evidence rating as incremental or better; moderate certainty with substantial net health benefit). Routine laboratory testing among patients with CSU with otherwise normal histories and physical examination findings (1 study) had ICERs ranging from $1 427 928 to $1 950 524 per QALY (evidence rating as comparable or inferior; moderate certainty that the net health benefit is inferior).</p><p><strong>Conclusions and relevance: </strong>With limited evidence of cost-effectiveness, biologic omalizumab, 300 mg, for H1 antihistamine-refractory CSU was found to be cost-effective in US health care services at the willingness to pay threshold of $150 000 per QALY. Meanwhile, routine laboratory testing among patients with CSU without compelling indication was not cost-effective. Future studies in more diverse CU populations and resource settings are needed to fill evidence gaps.</p>","PeriodicalId":14734,"journal":{"name":"JAMA dermatology","volume":" ","pages":"1225-1236"},"PeriodicalIF":11.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JAMA dermatology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1001/jamadermatol.2024.2863","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DERMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Importance: Although treatment for chronic urticaria (CU) has improved over the past decades, evidence regarding costs and net benefits associated with these treatment strategies have yet to be comprehensively characterized and synthesized.

Objective: To summarize the cost and cost-effectiveness of CU management strategies.

Evidence review: An extensive systematic literature search of 6 databases (MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed Cochrane, Scopus, and CINAHL) and gray literature sources, without language restriction, was conducted and updated to March 23, 2024. Articles that performed cost analysis or full economic evaluation among patients with CU were included. Two reviewers independently extracted data, such as annual costs of health care services or incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). All monetary values were converted and inflated to 2023 US dollars. Evidence-based synthesis for health benefit was judged using the Evidence Rating Matrix by the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review.

Findings: Seventeen unique studies (11 cost analysis studies and 6 full economic evaluations) were included. With the wide variation in health care resources, services that included biologic omalizumab utilization had higher annual health care cost estimations for CU management than services that did not include omalizumab prescription (median [IQR] cost, $6933 [$5988-$8717] vs $5621 [$2488-$8754]). The biologic omalizumab, 300 mg, for H1 antihistamine-refractory chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) (3 studies) was found to have a median (IQR) ICER of $89 005 ($36 058-$145 694) per QALY (evidence rating as incremental or better; moderate certainty with substantial net health benefit). Routine laboratory testing among patients with CSU with otherwise normal histories and physical examination findings (1 study) had ICERs ranging from $1 427 928 to $1 950 524 per QALY (evidence rating as comparable or inferior; moderate certainty that the net health benefit is inferior).

Conclusions and relevance: With limited evidence of cost-effectiveness, biologic omalizumab, 300 mg, for H1 antihistamine-refractory CSU was found to be cost-effective in US health care services at the willingness to pay threshold of $150 000 per QALY. Meanwhile, routine laboratory testing among patients with CSU without compelling indication was not cost-effective. Future studies in more diverse CU populations and resource settings are needed to fill evidence gaps.

慢性荨麻疹治疗策略的成本和成本效益:系统综述。
重要性:尽管慢性荨麻疹(CU)的治疗在过去几十年中有所改善,但与这些治疗策略相关的成本和净效益方面的证据尚未得到全面描述和综合:目的:总结慢性荨麻疹治疗策略的成本和成本效益:对 6 个数据库(MEDLINE、Embase、PubMed Cochrane、Scopus 和 CINAHL)和灰色文献来源进行了广泛的系统性文献检索,无语言限制,并更新至 2024 年 3 月 23 日。研究纳入了对 CU 患者进行成本分析或全面经济评估的文章。两名审稿人独立提取数据,如医疗服务的年度成本或每质量调整生命年(QALY)的增量成本效益比(ICER)。所有货币价值均换算成 2023 年的美元。采用临床与经济审查研究所的证据评级矩阵对健康效益的循证综述进行评判:共纳入 17 项独特的研究(11 项成本分析研究和 6 项全面经济评估)。由于医疗资源的差异很大,与不包括奥马珠单抗处方的服务相比,包括使用生物制剂奥马珠单抗的服务在CU管理方面的年度医疗成本估算更高(中位数[IQR]成本,6933美元[5988-8717美元] vs 5621美元[2488-8754美元])。针对 H1 抗组胺药难治性慢性自发性荨麻疹(CSU)的生物制剂奥马珠单抗(300 毫克)(3 项研究)的每 QALY ICER 中位数(IQR)为 89 005 美元(36 058 美元-145 694 美元)(证据评级为增量或更好;中度确定性,具有可观的净健康获益)。在病史和体格检查结果正常的 CSU 患者中进行常规实验室检测(1 项研究),每 QALY 的 ICER 为 1 427 928 美元至 1 950 524 美元(证据评级为相当或较差;中度确定净健康获益较差):在成本效益证据有限的情况下,生物制剂奥马珠单抗(300 毫克)治疗 H1 抗组胺药难治性 CSU 在美国医疗保健服务中的成本效益为每 QALY 150 000 美元的支付意愿阈值。与此同时,对无明确适应症的 CSU 患者进行常规实验室检测并不划算。未来需要对更多不同的CU人群和资源环境进行研究,以填补证据空白。
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
JAMA dermatology
JAMA dermatology DERMATOLOGY-
CiteScore
14.10
自引率
5.50%
发文量
300
期刊介绍: JAMA Dermatology is an international peer-reviewed journal that has been in continuous publication since 1882. It began publication by the American Medical Association in 1920 as Archives of Dermatology and Syphilology. The journal publishes material that helps in the development and testing of the effectiveness of diagnosis and treatment in medical and surgical dermatology, pediatric and geriatric dermatology, and oncologic and aesthetic dermatologic surgery. JAMA Dermatology is a member of the JAMA Network, a consortium of peer-reviewed, general medical and specialty publications. It is published online weekly, every Wednesday, and in 12 print/online issues a year. The mission of the journal is to elevate the art and science of health and diseases of skin, hair, nails, and mucous membranes, and their treatment, with the aim of enabling dermatologists to deliver evidence-based, high-value medical and surgical dermatologic care. The journal publishes a broad range of innovative studies and trials that shift research and clinical practice paradigms, expand the understanding of the burden of dermatologic diseases and key outcomes, improve the practice of dermatology, and ensure equitable care to all patients. It also features research and opinion examining ethical, moral, socioeconomic, educational, and political issues relevant to dermatologists, aiming to enable ongoing improvement to the workforce, scope of practice, and the training of future dermatologists. JAMA Dermatology aims to be a leader in developing initiatives to improve diversity, equity, and inclusion within the specialty and within dermatology medical publishing.
×
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