Economic evaluations of nonpharmacological treatments for drug-resistant epilepsy: A systematic review.

This study was undertaken to systematically identify and critically appraise all published full economic evaluations assessing the cost-effectiveness of nonpharmacological interventions for patients with drug-resistant epilepsy. The Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome, Study criteria was used to design search strategies for the identification and selection of relevant studies. Literature search was performed using the MEDLINE (via PubMed), Embase, International Health Technology Assessment, National Institute for Health Research Economic Evaluation Database, and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry databases to identify articles published between January 2000 and May 2023. Web of Science was additionally used to perform forward and backward referencing. Title, abstract, and full-text screening was performed by two independent researchers. The Consensus Health Economic Criteria (CHEC) checklist and Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) 2022 were applied for quality assessment. A total of 4470 studies were identified, of which 18 met our inclusion criteria. Twelve of the studies conducted model-based economic evaluation, and others were trial-based. Three studies showed that epilepsy surgery was cost-effective in adults, whereas this remained inconclusive for children (two positive, three negative). Three studies showed negative economic outcome for ketogenic diet in children. One of four studies showed positive results for self-management. For vagus nerve stimulation, one study showed positive results in adults and another one negative results in children. One recent study showed cost-effectiveness of responsive neurostimulation (RNS) in adults. Finally, one study showed promising but inconclusive results for deep brain stimulation (DBS). The mean scores for risk of bias assessment (based on CHEC) and for reporting quality (CHEERS 2022) were 95.8% and 80.5%, respectively. This review identified studies that assessed the cost-effectiveness of nonpharmacological treatments in both adults and children with drug-resistant epilepsy, suggesting that in adults, epilepsy surgery, vagus nerve stimulation, and RNS are cost-effective, and that DBS and self-management appear to be promising. In children, the cost-effectiveness of epilepsy surgery remains inconclusive. Finally, the use of ketogenic diet was shown not to be cost-effective. However, limited long-term data were available for newer interventions (i.e., ketogenic diet, DBS, and RNS).

A discrete choice experiment to investigate patient preferences for HIV testing programs in Bogotá, Colombia.

BACKGROUND: To assess patients' preferences for HIV testing in Colombia. METHODS: A discrete choice experiment was used to assess preferences of patients diagnosed with HIV, for HIV testing in two HIV clinics in Bogotá, Colombia. Patients were asked to choose repeatedly between two hypothetical HIV testing options that varied with respect to five attributes: distance to testing site, confidentiality, testing days, sample collection method, and the services if HIV positive. A random parameter model was used to analyze the data. RESULTS: A total of 249 questionnaires were eligible for data analysis. Respondents showed a preference for testing on weekdays, nobody being aware, a sample taken from the arm, and receiving medications through a referral. The respondents showed a high negative preference for many people being aware, followed by testing during the weekend and home testing. Subgroup analyses by gender and prior testing history did not reveal significant differences. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that patients' preferences for HIV testing focused especially on confidentiality, availability during weekdays, and using a sample from the arm. This information could be useful to improve uptake of HIV testing in Bogotá, Colombia.

Is it cost-effective to provide internet-based interventions to complement the current provision of smoking cessation services in the Netherlands? An analysis based on the EQUIPTMOD.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: The cost-effectiveness of internet-based smoking cessation interventions is difficult to determine when they are provided as a complement to current smoking cessation services. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of such an alternate package compared with existing smoking cessation services alone (current package). METHODS: A literature search was conducted to identify internet-based smoking cessation interventions in the Netherlands. A meta-analysis was then performed to determine the pooled effectiveness of a (web-based) computer-tailored intervention. The mean cost of implementing internet based interventions was calculated using available information, while intervention reach was sourced from an English study. We used EQUIPTMOD, a Markov-based state-transition model, to calculate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios [expressed as cost per quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained] for different time horizons to assess the value of providing internet-based interventions to complement the current package.). Deterministic sensitivity analyses tested the uncertainty around intervention costs per smoker, relative risks, and the intervention reach. RESULTS: Internet-based interventions had an estimated pooled relative risk of 1.40; average costs per smoker of €2.71; and a reach of 0.41% of all smokers. The alternate package (i.e. provision of internet-based intervention to the current package) was dominant (cost-saving) compared with the current package alone (0.14 QALY gained per 1000 smokers; reduced health-care costs of €602.91 per 1000 smokers for the life-time horizon). The alternate package remained dominant in all sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSION: Providing internet-based smoking cessation interventions to complement the current provision of smoking cessation services could be a cost-saving policy option in the Netherlands.

A systematic review of economic evaluations of treatments for patients with epilepsy.

The increasing number of treatment options and the high costs associated with epilepsy have fostered the development of economic evaluations in epilepsy. It is important to examine the availability and quality of these economic evaluations and to identify potential research gaps. As well as looking at both pharmacologic (antiepileptic drugs [AEDs]) and nonpharmacologic (e.g., epilepsy surgery, ketogenic diet, vagus nerve stimulation) therapies, this review examines the methodologic quality of the full economic evaluations included. Literature search was performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, NHS Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED), Econlit, Web of Science, and CEA Registry. In addition, Cochrane Reviews, Cochrane DARE and Cochrane Health Technology Assessment Databases were used. To identify relevant studies, predefined clinical search strategies were combined with a search filter designed to identify health economic studies. Specific search strategies were devised for the following topics: (1) AEDs, (2) patients with cognitive deficits, (3) elderly patients, (4) epilepsy surgery, (5) ketogenic diet, (6) vagus nerve stimulation, and (7) treatment of (non)convulsive status epilepticus. A total of 40 publications were included in this review, 29 (73%) of which were articles about pharmacologic interventions. Mean quality score of all articles on the Consensus Health Economic Criteria (CHEC)-extended was 81.8%, the lowest quality score being 21.05%, whereas five studies had a score of 100%. Looking at the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS), the average quality score was 77.0%, the lowest being 22.7%, and four studies rated as 100%. There was a substantial difference in methodology in all included articles, which hampered the attempt to combine information meaningfully. Overall, the methodologic quality was acceptable; however, some studies performed significantly worse than others. The heterogeneity between the studies stresses the need to define a reference case (e.g., how should an economic evaluation within epilepsy be performed) and to derive consensus on what constitutes "standard optimal care."