The Economic Burden of Candidemia and Invasive Candidiasis: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Candidemia or invasive candidiasis (IC) is an increasingly common fungal infection and has been associated with high mortality, particularly among the immunocompromised and critically ill. Although several studies have been conducted to estimate the cost of managing candidemia and IC, quality assessment on the methodological aspects of these cost studies was not performed. To date, no systematic review focusing on the economic burden of candidemia and IC has ever been conducted. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to systematically review the available evidence on the economic burden of candidemia and IC worldwide. METHODS: Databases (ie, PubMed, Scopus, EconLit, HEORO, and Ovid/Embase) were searched through June 2018. Two researchers independently assessed the quality of the eligible studies. Costs reported in the included studies were converted to 2016 USD using Campbell and Cochrane Economics Methods Group-the Evidence for Policy and Practice Information (CCEMG-EPPI)-Centre Cost Converter software. RESULTS: Eight articles were included in this systematic review. The mean total cost per patient with candidemia and IC ranged from $48 487 to $157 574, whereas the mean cost per hospitalization associated with candidemia and IC was from $10 216 to $37 715. All studies were from developed Western countries and reported only direct costs of candidemia and IC. Hospitalization was the main cost driver, contributing to more than half of the total costs. CONCLUSION: Quality cost studies on candidemia and IC based on standardized methods to provide informed decision making among healthcare authorities in implementing appropriate strategies is anticipated, in particular in developing countries.

Cost-Effectiveness of Adjuvant Trastuzumab Therapy for Early Breast Cancer in Asia: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVES: To systematically review and assess the quality of the economic evidence of adjuvant trastuzumab usage in early breast cancer in Asian countries. METHODS: Literature search was performed using 6 electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus, Ovid MEDLINE, EconLit, National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database, and ISI Web of Knowledge). The final search was performed in October 2018. All potential economic studies were then checked for eligibility. The reporting and methodological qualities of each study were independently assessed by 2 authors of this review, using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards, Drummond, and Philips checklists. To compare the different currencies used in these studies, all costs were converted into US dollars (2016). RESULTS: A total of 6 studies were included; most of them were performed from the healthcare provider perspective. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for evaluation performed for a lifetime horizon were reported at $8573 and $20 816 per quality-adjusted life-year in 2 studies. The model outcome was generally sensitive to the changes in trastuzumab drug acquisition cost and discount rate, as well as its clinical effectiveness. For the quality assessment, all studies fulfilled more than 50% of the requirements in the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards, Drummond, and Philips checklists. CONCLUSIONS: Adjuvant trastuzumab therapy is considered a cost-effective option for early breast cancer in Asian countries including China, Iran, Japan, Singapore, and Taiwan. All studies were generally well conducted. Economic evaluations from the societal perspective, with inclusion of indirect and informal care costs, are warranted to facilitate informed decision making among policy makers.

Economic Evaluations on Antimicrobial Stewardship Programme: A Systematic Review.

PURPOSE: To systematically review studies on cost-effectiveness of implementing Antimicrobial stewardship programmes (ASP) in the hospital setting. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed using electronic databases, such as EMBASE, PubMed/Medline, CINAHL, NHS and CEA Registry from 2000 until 2017. The quality of each included study was assessed using Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist for Economic Evaluations and Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards Statement checklist. RESULTS: Of the 313 papers retrieved, five papers were included in this review after assessment for eligibility. The majority of the studies were cost-effectiveness studies, comparing ASP to standard care. Four included economic studies were conducted from the provider (hospital) perspective while the other study was from payer (National Health System) perspective. The cost included for economic analysis were as following: personnel costs, warded cost, medical costs, procedure costs and other costs. CONCLUSIONS: All studies were generally well-conducted with relatively good quality of reporting. Implementing ASP in the hospital setting may be cost-effective. However, comprehensive cost-effectiveness data for ASP remain relatively scant, underlining the need for more prospective clinical and epidemiological studies to incorporate robust economic analyses into clinical decisions. This article is open to POST-PUBLICATION REVIEW. Registered readers (see "For Readers") may comment by clicking on ABSTRACT on the issue's contents page.