Social gradients in health and social care costs: Analysis of linked electronic health records in Kent, UK.

OBJECTIVES: Research into the socio-economic patterning of health and social care costs in the UK has so far been limited to examining only particular aspects of healthcare. In this study, we explore the social gradients in overall healthcare and social care costs, as well as in the disaggregated costs by cost category. STUDY DESIGN: We calculated the social gradient in health and social care costs by cost category using a linked electronic health record data set for Kent, a county in South East England. We performed a cross-sectional analysis on a sample of 323,401 residents in Kent older than 55 years to assess the impact of neighbourhood deprivation on mean annual per capita costs in 2016/17. METHODS: Patient-level costs were estimated from activity data for the financial year 2016/17 and were extracted alongside key patient characteristics. Mean costs were calculated for each area deprivation quintile based on the index of multiple deprivation of the neighbourhood (lower super output area) in which the patient lived. Cost subcategories were analysed across primary care, secondary care, social care, community care and mental health. RESULTS: The mean annual per capita cost increased with deprivation across each deprivation quintile, with a cost of £1205 in the most affluent quintile, compared with £1623 in the most deprived quintile, a 35% cost increase. Social gradients were found across all cost subcategories. CONCLUSIONS: Health inequalities in the population older than 55 years in Kent are associated with health and social care costs of £109m, equivalent to 15% of the estimated total expenditure in this age group. Such significant costs suggest that appropriate interventions to reduce socio-economic inequalities have the potential to substantially improve population health and, depending on how much investment they require, may even result in cost savings.

Health economic analysis of allergen immunotherapy for the management of allergic rhinitis, asthma, food allergy and venom allergy: A systematic overview.

BACKGROUND: The European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) is developing guidelines for allergen immunotherapy (AIT) for the management of allergic rhinitis, allergic asthma, IgE-mediated food allergy and venom allergy. To inform the development of clinical recommendations, we undertook systematic reviews to critically assess evidence on the effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of AIT for these conditions. This study focusses on synthesizing data and gaps in the evidence on the cost-effectiveness of AIT for these conditions. METHODS: We produced summaries of evidence in each domain, and then, synthesized findings on health economic data identified from four recent systematic reviews on allergic rhinitis, asthma, food allergy and venom allergy, respectively. The quality of these studies was independently assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tool for health economic evaluations. RESULTS: Twenty-three studies satisfied our inclusion criteria. Of these, 19 studies investigated the cost-effectiveness of AIT in allergic rhinitis, of which seven were based on data from randomized controlled trials with economic evaluations conducted from a health system perspective. This body of evidence suggested that sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) and subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) would be considered cost-effective using the (English) National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) cost-effectiveness threshold of £20 000/quality-adjusted life year (QALY). However, the quality of the studies and the general lack of attention to characterizing uncertainty and handling missing data should be taken into account when interpreting these results. For asthma, there were three eligible studies, all of which had significant methodological limitations; these suggested that SLIT, when used in patients with both asthma and allergic rhinitis, may be cost-effective with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £10 726 per QALY. We found one economic modelling study for venom allergy which, despite being based largely on expert opinion and plausible assumptions, suggested that AIT for bee and wasp venom allergy is only likely to be cost-effective for very high-risk groups who may be exposed to multiple exposures to venom/year (eg bee keepers). We found no eligible studies investigating the cost-effectiveness of AIT for food allergy. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the evidence to support the cost-effectiveness of AIT is limited and of low methodological quality, but suggests that AIT may be cost-effective for people with allergic rhinitis with or without asthma and in high-risk subgroups for venom allergy. We were unable to draw any conclusions on the cost-effectiveness of AIT for food allergy.

Allergen immunotherapy for allergic asthma: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: To inform the development of the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology's (EAACI) Guidelines on Allergen Immunotherapy (AIT) for allergic asthma, we assessed the evidence on the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and safety of AIT. METHODS: We performed a systematic review, which involved searching nine databases. Studies were screened against predefined eligibility criteria and critically appraised using established instruments. Data were synthesized using random-effects meta-analyses. RESULTS: 98 studies satisfied the inclusion criteria. Short-term symptom scores were reduced with a standardized mean difference (SMD) of -1.11 (95% CI -1.66, -0.56). This was robust to a prespecified sensitivity analyses, but there was evidence suggestive of publication bias. Short-term medication scores were reduced SMD -1.21 (95% CI -1.87, -0.54), again with evidence of potential publication bias. There was no reduction in short-term combined medication and symptom scores SMD 0.17 (95% CI -0.23, 0.58), but one study showed a beneficial long-term effect. For secondary outcomes, subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) improved quality of life and decreased allergen-specific airway hyperreactivity (AHR), but this was not the case for sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT). There were no consistent effects on asthma control, exacerbations, lung function, and nonspecific AHR. AIT resulted in a modest increased risk of adverse events (AEs). Although relatively uncommon, systemic AEs were more frequent with SCIT; however no fatalities were reported. The limited evidence on cost-effectiveness was mainly available for sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) and this suggested that SLIT is likely to be cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS: AIT can achieve substantial reductions in short-term symptom and medication scores in allergic asthma. It was however associated with a modest increased risk of systemic and local AEs. More data are needed in relation to secondary outcomes, longer-term effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.

Allergen immunotherapy for insect venom allergy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) is in the process of developing the EAACI Guidelines on Allergen Immunotherapy (AIT) for the management of insect venom allergy. To inform this process, we sought to assess the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and safety of AIT in the management of insect venom allergy. METHODS: We undertook a systematic review, which involved searching 15 international biomedical databases for published and unpublished evidence. Studies were independently screened and critically appraised using established instruments. Data were descriptively summarized and, where possible, meta-analysed. RESULTS: Our searches identified a total of 16 950 potentially eligible studies; of which, 17 satisfied our inclusion criteria. The available evidence was limited both in volume and in quality, but suggested that venom immunotherapy (VIT) could substantially reduce the risk of subsequent severe systemic sting reactions (OR = 0.08, 95% CI 0.03-0.26); meta-analysis showed that it also improved disease-specific quality of life (risk difference = 1.41, 95% CI 1.04-1.79). Adverse effects were experienced in both the build-up and maintenance phases, but most were mild with no fatalities being reported. The very limited evidence found on modelling cost-effectiveness suggested that VIT was likely to be cost-effective in those at high risk of repeated systemic sting reactions and/or impaired quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: The limited available evidence suggested that VIT is effective in reducing severe subsequent systemic sting reactions and in improving disease-specific quality of life. VIT proved to be safe and no fatalities were recorded in the studies included in this review. The cost-effectiveness of VIT needs to be established.

Allergen immunotherapy for allergic rhinoconjunctivitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) is in the process of developing Guidelines on Allergen Immunotherapy (AIT) for Allergic Rhinoconjunctivitis. To inform the development of clinical recommendations, we undertook a systematic review to assess the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and safety of AIT in the management of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis. METHODS: We searched nine international biomedical databases for published, in-progress, and unpublished evidence. Studies were independently screened by two reviewers against predefined eligibility criteria and critically appraised using established instruments. Our primary outcomes of interest were symptom, medication, and combined symptom and medication scores. Secondary outcomes of interest included cost-effectiveness and safety. Data were descriptively summarized and then quantitatively synthesized using random-effects meta-analyses. RESULTS: We identified 5960 studies of which 160 studies satisfied our eligibility criteria. There was a substantial body of evidence demonstrating significant reductions in standardized mean differences (SMD) of symptom (SMD -0.53, 95% CI -0.63, -0.42), medication (SMD -0.37, 95% CI -0.49, -0.26), and combined symptom and medication (SMD -0.49, 95% CI -0.69, -0.30) scores while on treatment that were robust to prespecified sensitivity analyses. There was in comparison a more modest body of evidence on effectiveness post-discontinuation of AIT, suggesting a benefit in relation to symptom scores. CONCLUSIONS: AIT is effective in improving symptom, medication, and combined symptom and medication scores in patients with allergic rhinoconjunctivitis while on treatment, and there is some evidence suggesting that these benefits are maintained in relation to symptom scores after discontinuation of therapy.

Considering equity in priority setting using transmission models: Recommendations and data needs.

OBJECTIVES: Disease transmission models are used in impact assessment and economic evaluations of infectious disease prevention and treatment strategies, prominently so in the COVID-19 response. These models rarely consider dimensions of equity relating to the differential health burden between individuals and groups. We describe concepts and approaches which are useful when considering equity in the priority setting process, and outline the technical choices concerning model structure, outputs, and data requirements needed to use transmission models in analyses of health equity. METHODS: We reviewed the literature on equity concepts and approaches to their application in economic evaluation and undertook a technical consultation on how equity can be incorporated in priority setting for infectious disease control. The technical consultation brought together health economists with an interest in equity-informative economic evaluation, ethicists specialising in public health, mathematical modellers from various disease backgrounds, and representatives of global health funding and technical assistance organisations, to formulate key areas of consensus and recommendations. RESULTS: We provide a series of recommendations for applying the Reference Case for Economic Evaluation in Global Health to infectious disease interventions, comprising guidance on 1) the specification of equity concepts; 2) choice of evaluation framework; 3) model structure; and 4) data needs. We present available conceptual and analytical choices, for example how correlation between different equity- and disease-relevant strata should be considered dependent on available data, and outline how assumptions and data limitations can be reported transparently by noting key factors for consideration. CONCLUSIONS: Current developments in economic evaluations in global health provide a wide range of methodologies to incorporate equity into economic evaluations. Those employing infectious disease models need to use these frameworks more in priority setting to accurately represent health inequities. We provide guidance on the technical approaches to support this goal and ultimately, to achieve more equitable health policies.

Building Capacity for Evidence-Informed Priority Setting in the Indian Health System: An International Collaborative Experience.

India's rapid economic growth has been accompanied by slower improvements in population health. Given the need to reconcile the ambitious goal of achieving Universal Coverage with limited resources, a robust priority-setting mechanism is required to ensure that the right trade-offs are made and the impact on health is maximised. Health Technology Assessment (HTA) is endorsed by the World Health Assembly as the gold standard approach to synthesizing evidence systematically for evidence-informed priority setting (EIPS). India is formally committed to institutionalising HTA as an integral component of the EIPS process. The effective conduct and uptake of HTA depends on a well-functioning ecosystem of stakeholders adept at commissioning and generating policy-relevant HTA research, developing and utilising rigorous technical, transparent, and inclusive methods and processes, and a strong multisectoral and transnational appetite for the use of evidence to inform policy. These all require myriad complex and complementary capacities to be built at each level of the health system . In this paper we describe how a framework for targeted and locally-tailored capacity building for EIPS, and specifically HTA, was collaboratively developed and implemented by an international network of priority-setting expertise, and the Government of India.

Health equity monitoring for healthcare quality assurance.

Population-wide health equity monitoring remains isolated from mainstream healthcare quality assurance. As a result, healthcare organizations remain ill-informed about the health equity impacts of their decisions - despite becoming increasingly well-informed about quality of care for the average patient. We present a new and improved analytical approach to integrating health equity into mainstream healthcare quality assurance, illustrate how this approach has been applied in the English National Health Service, and discuss how it could be applied in other countries. We illustrate the approach using a key quality indicator that is widely used to assess how well healthcare is co-ordinated between primary, community and acute settings: emergency inpatient hospital admissions for ambulatory care sensitive chronic conditions ("potentially avoidable emergency admissions", for short). Whole-population data for 2015 on potentially avoidable emergency admissions in England were linked with neighborhood deprivation indices. Inequality within the populations served by 209 clinical commissioning groups (CCGs: care purchasing organizations with mean population 272,000) was compared against two benchmarks - national inequality and inequality within ten similar populations - using neighborhood-level models to simulate the gap in indirectly standardized admissions between most and least deprived neighborhoods. The modelled inequality gap for England was 927 potentially avoidable emergency admissions per 100,000 people, implying 263,894 excess hospitalizations associated with inequality. Against this national benchmark, 17% of CCGs had significantly worse-than-benchmark equity, and 23% significantly better. The corresponding figures were 11% and 12% respectively against the similar populations benchmark. Deprivation-related inequality in potentially avoidable emergency admissions varies substantially between English CCGs serving similar populations, beyond expected statistical variation. Administrative data on inequality in healthcare quality within similar populations served by different healthcare organizations can provide useful information for healthcare quality assurance.

The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of low-intensity psychological interventions for the secondary prevention of relapse after depression: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Depression is the most common mental disorder in community settings and a major cause of disability across the world. The objective of treatment is to achieve remission or at least adequate control of depressive symptoms; however, even after successful treatment, the risk of relapse after remission is significant. Although the effectiveness of low-intensity interventions has been extensively evaluated to treat primary symptoms of psychological difficulties, there has been substantially less research examining the use of these interventions as a relapse prevention strategy. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of low-intensity psychological or psychosocial interventions to prevent relapse or recurrence in patients with depression. As the broader definition of 'low-intensity' psychological intervention is somewhat contested, the review was conducted in two parts: A, a systematic review of all evaluations of 'low-intensity' interventions that were delivered by para-professionals, peer supporters or psychological well-being practitioners as defined by the Improving Access to Psychological Therapies programme; and B, a scoping review of relevant evaluations of interventions involving qualified mental health professionals (e.g. psychiatrists, clinical psychologists, cognitive behavioural therapists) involving < 6 hours of contact per patient. DATA SOURCES: Comprehensive literature searches were developed; electronic databases were searched from inception until September 2010 (including MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, PsycINFO, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library), internet resources were used to identify guidelines on the treatment of depression, and the bibliographies of relevant reviews, guidelines and included studies were scrutinised. REVIEW METHODS: Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts; data were extracted independently by one reviewer using a standardised data extraction form and checked by another. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus, with involvement of a third reviewer when necessary. The inclusion criteria were population - adults or adolescents who had received treatment for depression; intervention - part A, low-intensity interventions, specifically any unsupported psychological/psychosocial interventions or any supported interventions that did not involve highly qualified mental health professionals, and, part B, interventions carried out by qualified mental health professionals that involved < 6 hours of contact per patient; comparator - any, including no treatment, placebo, psychological or pharmacological interventions; outcomes - relapse or recurrence, other outcomes (e.g. social function, quality of life) were recorded where reported; and study design - for clinical effectiveness, randomised, quasi-randomised and non-randomised studies with concurrent control patients. For cost-effectiveness, full economic evaluations that compared two or more treatment options and considered both costs and consequences. No studies met the main part A inclusion criteria. RESULTS: For the clinical effectiveness review, 17 studies (14 completed, three ongoing), reported in 27 publications, met the part B inclusion criteria. These studies were clinically and methodologically diverse, and reported differing degrees of efficacy for the evaluated interventions. One randomised controlled trial (RCT), which evaluated a collaborative care-type programme, was potentially relevant to part A; this study reported no difference between patients receiving the intervention and those receiving usual care in terms of relapse of depression over 12 months. For the cost-effectiveness review, two studies met the criteria for part B. One of these was an economic evaluation of the RCT above, which was potentially relevant to part A. This evaluation found that the intervention may be a cost-effective use of resources when compared with usual care; however, it was unclear how valid these estimates were for the NHS. LIMITATIONS: Although any definition of 'brief' is likely to be somewhat arbitrary, an inclusion threshold of 6 hours contact per patient was used to select brief high-intensity intervention studies. Most excluded studies evaluated clearly resource-intensive interventions, though occasionally, studies were excluded on the basis of having only slightly more than 6 hours contact per patient. CONCLUSIONS: There is inadequate evidence to determine the clinical effectiveness or cost-effectiveness of low-intensity interventions for the prevention of relapse or recurrence of depression. A scoping review of brief high-intensity therapies indicates that some approaches have shown promise in some studies, but findings have not been consistent. Many uncertainties remain and further primary research is required. Careful consideration should be given to the scope of such research; it is important to evaluate the broader patient pathway accounting for the heterogeneous patient groups of interest. Future RCTs conducted in a UK primary care setting should include adult participants in remission or recovery from depression, and evaluate the quality of the intervention and consistency of delivery across practitioners where appropriate. The occurrence of relapse or recurrence should be measured using established methods, and functional outcomes as well as symptoms should be measured; data on quality of life using a generic instrument, such as the European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D), should be collected. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.