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":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":11.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-28","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.
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.