RESUMO
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: In Europe, prostate cancer (PCa) is the most common cancer in men. Screening may therefore be crucial to lower health care costs, morbidity, and mortality. This systematic review aimed to provide a contemporary overview of the costs and benefits of PCa screening programmes. METHODS: A peer-reviewed literature search was conducted, using the PICO method. A detailed search strategy was developed in four databases based on the following key search terms: "PCa", "screening", and "cost effectiveness". Any type of economic evaluation was included. The search strategy was restricted to European countries, but no restrictions were set on the year of publication. KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS: A total of 7484 studies were identified initially. Of these, 19 studies described the cost effectiveness of PCa screening in Europe. Among the studies using an initially healthy study population, most focussed on risk- and/or age- and/or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-based screening in addition to prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing and compared this with no screening. Incremental cost ratios (ICERs) varied from 5872 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) to 372 948/QALY, with a median of 56 487/QALY. Risk-based screening followed by MRI testing seemed to be a more cost-effective strategy than no screening. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: This systematic review indicates that screening programmes incorporating a risk-based approach and MRI have the potential to be cost effective. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this review, we looked at the cost effectiveness of prostate cancer screening in Europe. We found that a risk-based approach and incorporation of magnetic resonance imaging has the potential to be cost effective. However, there remains a knowledge gap regarding cost effectiveness of prostate cancer screening. Therefore, determinants of cost effectiveness require further investigation.
RESUMO
AIM: Polypharmacy in multimorbid older patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) is a risk factor for potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP). We aimed to systematically assess the evidence on the prevalence of PIP and its impact on adverse health outcomes in this patient group. METHODS: A systematic search of the published peer-reviewed literature describing the prevalence of PIP and/or its association with adverse health outcomes in multimorbid (AF plus one comorbidity) and polymedicated (≥ 2 drugs) adults ≥ 65 years was done up to March 2023. A meta-analysis of the prevalence of PIP of (direct) oral anticoagulants ((D)OACs) was conducted using a random-effects model. Leave-one-out analysis was performed with R (version 4.2.2) and RStudio (version 2022.12.0+353). RESULTS: Of the 12 studies included, only one reported on the prevalence of overall PIP (65%). The meta-analysis of 10 studies assessing PIP of (D)OACs produced a pooled prevalence [95% confidence interval (CI)] of 35% [30-40%], with significant heterogeneity between the included studies (I2 95%). No statistically significant association was reported in three studies between PIP of (D)OACs, cardiovascular (CV) and all-cause mortality, hospital readmission, CV hospitalisation and stroke. Reported associations between PIP and major bleeding differed, with one study demonstrating a significant association (odds ratio 2.17; 95% CI 1.14-4.12) and the other study not showing such association. CONCLUSION: This systematic review highlights the scarce evidence regarding the prevalence of PIP and its association with adverse health outcomes in multimorbid older adults with AF. Large, prospective and better-designed studies are needed.