A systematic review of economic evaluation in fecal microbiota transplantation.

BACKGROUND: Fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) is an effective therapy in recurrent Clostridium difficile infection (rCDI). It is only recommended for this indication by European and American guidelines. Other indications of FMT are being studied, such as inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), and they have shown promising results. OBJECTIVES: To identify and review published FMT-related economic evaluations (EEs) to assess their quality and the economic impact of FMT in the treatment of these diseases. DATA SOURCES: The systematic literature research was conducted in both PubMed and Cochrane to identify EEs published before July 1, 2019. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Articles were included if they concerned FMT (whatever the disease and its line of treatment), if they reported full or partial EEs, and if they were written in English. Articles were excluded if they did not concern FMT; if they did not report an EE; or if they were a systematic review, editorial, comment, letter to the editor, practice point, or poster. METHODS: A measurement tool, AMSTAR, was used to optimize the quality of this systematic review. Based on the CHEERS checklist, data were identified and extracted from articles. The quality of each EE was assessed using the Drummond checklist. RESULTS: Overall, 9 EEs were included: all EEs were full evaluations and 8 were cost-utility analyses (CUAs). All EEs had a Drummond score ≥ 7, which indicated high quality. All CUAs related to rCDI and IBD concluded that FMT was cost-effective compared with other reference treatments, at a threshold ≤$50,000/QALY. One EE about initial CDI showed that FMT was dominated by metronidazole. CONCLUSIONS: Despite a limited number of EEs, FMT seems to be a promising and cost-effective treatment for rCDI. More EE studies on other diseases like IBD are necessary to address FMT efficiency for new indications. Therefore, our systematic review provides a framework for healthcare decision making.

A systematic review of economic evaluation in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.

OBJECTIVES: The economic evaluation (EE) of healthcare interventions has become a necessity. However, high quality needs to be ensured in order to achieve validated results and help making informed decisions. Thus, the objective of the present study was to systematically identify and review published pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma-related EEs and to assess their quality. METHODS: Systematic literature research was conducted in PubMed and Cochrane to identify published EEs between 2000 and 2015. The quality of each selected EE was assessed by two independent reviewers, using the Drummond's checklist. RESULTS: Our systematic review was based on 32 EEs and showed a wide variety of methodological approaches, including different perspectives, time horizon, and cost effectiveness analyses. Nearly two-thirds of EEs are full EEs (n = 21), and about one-third of EEs had a Drummond score ≥7, synonymous with 'high quality'. Close to 50% of full EEs had a Drummond score ≥7, whereas all of partial EEs had a Drummond score <7 (n = 11). CONCLUSIONS: Over the past 15 years, a lot of interest has been evinced over the EE of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) and its direct impact on therapeutic advances in PDAC. To provide a framework for health care decision-making, to facilitate transferability and to lend credibility to health EEs, their quality must be improved. For the last 4 years, a tendency towards a quality improvement of these studies has been observed, probably coupled with a context of rational decision-making in health care, a better and wider spread of recommendations and thus, medical practitioners' full endorsement.

Cost-utility analyses of drug therapies in breast cancer: a systematic review.

The economic evaluation (EE) of health care products has become a necessity. Their quality must be high in order to trust the results and make informed decisions. While cost-utility analyses (CUAs) should be preferred to cost-effectiveness analyses in the oncology area, the quality of breast cancer (BC)-related CUA has been given little attention so far. Thus, firstly, a systematic review of published CUA related to drug therapies for BC, gene expression profiling, and HER2 status testing was performed. Secondly, the quality of selected CUA was assessed and the factors associated with a high-quality CUA identified. The systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, MEDLINE/EMBASE, and Cochrane to identify published CUA between 2000 and 2014. After screening and data extraction, the quality of each selected CUA was assessed by two independent reviewers, using the checklist proposed by Drummond et al. The analysis of factors associated with a high-quality CUA (defined as a Drummond score ≥7) was performed using a two-step approach. Our systematic review was based on 140 CUAs and showed a wide variety of methodological approaches, including differences in the perspective adopted, the time horizon, measurement of cost and effectiveness, and more specially health-state utility values (HSUVs). The median Drummond score was 7 [range 3-10]. Only one in two of the CUA (n = 74) had a Drummond score ≥7, synonymous of "high quality." The statistically significant predictors of a high-quality CUA were article with "gene expression profiling" topic (p = 0.001), consulting or pharmaceutical company as main location of first author (p = 0.004), and articles with both incremental cost-utility ratio and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio as outcomes of EE (p = 0.02). Our systematic review identified only 140 CUAs published over the past 15 years with one in two of high quality. It showed a wide variety of methodological approaches, especially focused on HSUVs. A critical appraisal of utility values is necessary to better understand one of the main difficulties encountered by authors and propose areas for improvement to increase the quality of CUA. Since the last 5 years, there is a tendency toward an improvement in the quality of these studies, probably coupled with economic context, a better and widely spreading of recommendations and thus appropriation by medical practitioners. That being said, there is an urgent need for mandatory use of European and international recommendations to ensure quality of such approaches and to allow easy comparison.