Systematic literature review of evidence in amyloid light-chain amyloidosis.

Introduction: Treatment of amyloid light-chain (AL) amyloidosis, a rare disease with a <5-year lifespan, remains challenging. This systematic literature review (SLR) aimed to evaluate the current evidence base in AL amyloidosis. Methods: Literature searches on clinical, health-related quality of life, economic and resource use evidence were conducted using the Embase, MEDLINE and Cochrane databases as well as gray literature. Results: This SLR yielded 84 unique studies from: five randomized controlled trials; 54 observational studies; 12 health-related quality of life studies, none with utility values; no economic evaluation studies; and 16 resource use studies, none with indirect costs. Conclusion: This SLR highlights a paucity of published literature relating to randomized controlled trials, utility values, economic evaluations and indirect costs in AL amyloidosis.

Influence of neurovascular embolic coil primary wind diameter on aneurysm packing density and case costs.

AIMS: Endovascular coiling is a common modality for treating intracranial aneurysms; however, recanalization occurs in approximately 1 in 5 cases, with downstream consequences of regrowth and rupture. Aneurysm packing density >24% reduces recanalization risk; packing density can be increased by inserting additional coils or by using coils with larger volumetric filling. Coil volume depends on length and primary wind diameter (PWD). This study evaluated the influence of PWD on packing density and total case costs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two hypothetical scenarios and one case study were analyzed. In scenario one, the number of coils required to achieve packing density >24% in a hypothetical aneurysm was determined for 0.012″ vs. 0.010″ PWD coils. In scenario two, the total length of 0.010″ vs. 0.012″ PWD coils required to achieve a packing density >24% was analyzed relative to aneurysm volume. In the case study, packing densities with one 0.012″ PWD coil (actual scenario) and one 0.010″ PWD coil (theoretical scenario) were compared. RESULTS: In scenario one, cost savings would be realized by using four 0.012″ PWD coils vs. seven 0.010″ PWD coils to achieve packing density >24%. In scenario two, greater volumetric filling of 0.012″ vs. 0.010″ PWD coils was correlated with lower total length of coil required. In the case study, a 0.012″ PWD coil achieved packing density >24%, whereas an equivalent length 0.010″ PWD coil would not. LIMITATIONS: Theoretical modeling was used to explore the impact of coil PWD on aneurysm packing density. In clinical practice, packing density depends not only on PWD but on its length, shape, distribution within an aneurysm, and other recanalization risk factors. CONCLUSIONS: Coil PWD influences packing density, the number of coils required to achieve a specific packing density, and total case costs. Using 0.012″ PWD coils may provide cost and procedural efficiencies.

A tale of two cities: the cost, price-differential and affordability of current and healthy diets in Sydney and Canberra, Australia.

BACKGROUND: The perception that healthy foods are more expensive than unhealthy foods has been reported widely to be a key barrier to healthy eating. However, assessment of the relative cost of healthy and unhealthy foods and diets is fraught methodologically. Standardised approaches to produce reliable data on the cost of total diets and different dietary patterns, rather than selected foods, are lacking globally to inform policy and practice. METHODS: This paper reports the first application, in randomly selected statistical areas stratified by socio-economic status in two Australian cities, of the Healthy Diets Australian Standardized Affordability and Pricing (ASAP) method protocols: diet pricing tools based on national nutrition survey data and dietary guidelines; store sampling and location; determination of household incomes; food price data collection; and analysis and reporting. The methods were developed by the International Network on Food and Obesity/NCD Research, Monitoring and Action Support (INFORMAS) as a prototype of an optimum approach to assess, compare and monitor the cost and affordability of diets across different geographical and socio-economic settings and times. RESULTS: Under current tax policy in Australia, healthy diets would be 15-17% less expensive than current (unhealthy) diets in all locations assessed. Nevertheless, healthy diets are likely to be unaffordable for low income households, costing more than 30% of disposable income in both cities surveyed. Households spent around 58% of their food budget on unhealthy food and drinks. Food costs were on average 4% higher in Canberra than Sydney, and tended to be higher in high socioeconomic locations. CONCLUSIONS: Health and fiscal policy actions to increase affordability of healthy diets for low income households are required urgently. Also, there is a need to counter perceptions that current, unhealthy diets must be less expensive than healthy diets. The Healthy Diets ASAP methods could be adapted to assess the cost and affordability of healthy and unhealthy diets elsewhere.

Healthy diets ASAP - Australian Standardised Affordability and Pricing methods protocol.

BACKGROUND: This paper describes the rationale, development and final protocol of the Healthy Diets Australian Standardised Affordability and Pricing (ASAP) method which aims to assess, compare and monitor the price, price differential and affordability of healthy (recommended) and current (unhealthy) diets in Australia. The protocol is consistent with the International Network for Food and Obesity / non-communicable Diseases Research, Monitoring and Action Support's (INFORMAS) optimal approach to monitor food price and affordability globally. METHODS: The Healthy Diets ASAP protocol was developed based on literature review, drafting, piloting and revising, with key stakeholder consultation at all stages, including at a national forum. DISCUSSION: The protocol was developed in five parts. Firstly, for the healthy (recommended) and current (unhealthy) diet pricing tools; secondly for calculation of median and low-income household incomes; thirdly for store location and sampling; fourthly for price data collection, and; finally for analysis and reporting. The Healthy Diets ASAP protocol constitutes a standardised approach to assess diet price and affordability to inform development of nutrition policy actions to reduce rates of diet-related chronic disease in Australia. It demonstrates application of the INFORMAS optimum food price and affordability methods at country level. Its wide application would enhance monitoring and utility of dietary price and affordability data from a health perspective in Australia. The protocol could be adapted in other countries to monitor the price, price differential and affordability of current and healthy diets.

Testing the price and affordability of healthy and current (unhealthy) diets and the potential impacts of policy change in Australia.

BACKGROUND: Price and affordability of foods are important determinants of health. Targeted food pricing policies may help improve population diets. However, methods producing comparable data to inform relevant policy decisions are lacking in Australia and globally. The objective was to develop and pilot standardised methods to assess the price, relative price and affordability of healthy (recommended) and current (unhealthy) diets and test impacts of a potential policy change. METHODS: Methods followed the optimal approach proposed by INFORMAS using recent Australian dietary intake data and guidelines. Draft healthy and current (unhealthy) diet baskets were developed for five household structures. Food prices were collected in stores in a high and low SES location in Brisbane, Australia. Diet prices were calculated and compared with household incomes, and with potential changes to the Australian Taxation System. Wilcoxen-signed rank tests were used to compare differences in price. RESULTS: The draft tools and protocols were deemed acceptable at household level, but methods could be refined. All households spend more on current (unhealthy) diets than required to purchase healthy (recommended) diets, with the majority (53-64 %) of the food budget being spent on 'discretionary' choices, including take-away foods and alcohol. A healthy diet presently costs between 20-31 % of disposable income of low income households, but would become unaffordable for these families under proposed changes to expand the GST to apply to all foods in Australia. CONCLUSIONS: Results confirmed that diet pricing methods providing meaningful, comparable data to inform potential fiscal and health policy actions can be developed, but draft tools should be refined. Results suggest that healthy diets can be more affordable than current (unhealthy) diets in Australia, but other factors may be as important as price in determining food choices.