The Economic Burden of Acute Myeloid Leukemia in Iran.

Background: Cancer imposes a significant economic burden on the health system and society. Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is the third deadliest leukemia and is one of the leading health problems worldwide. The present study aimed to estimate the economic burden of AML in Iran for 2020. Methods: In this study, we estimated a prevalence-based on the cost-of-illness of the AML in Iran. A societal perspective was considered, in which the direct costs and productivity losses with the adoption of the human capital approach in the AML cases were estimated for 2020. Moreover, in the present study, several resources including national cancer registry reports, hospital records, occupational data, and interviews with experts were cited. Results: Approximately 98% of patients with AML received induction therapy. The AML economic burden was $33,243,107.39. Indirect costs accounted for 60% (21,593,764.4$) of this amount, and direct medical costs and direct non-medical costs make up for 19% (6,359,380.88$) and 16% (5,289,962.11$) of this estimated economic burden, respectively. Conclusion: The economic burden of AML in Iran is very remarkable and due to the increasing prevalence of this disease, it is expected to increase gradually. Having insights into the costs associated with the disease provide an excellent opportunity for health policymakers and managers to effectively improve resource allocation.

Economic evaluation of laboratory diagnostic test types in Covid-19 epidemic: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Corona 2 virus (SARS-CoV-2) is known as the causative agent of COVID-19 disease; the World Health Organization (WHO) declared it an epidemic on March 11, 2020. The Joint Guidelines of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the WHO including social distancing, the use of face masks, emphasis on hand washing, quarantine, and using diagnosis tests have been used widely, but the value of diagnostic interventions to prevent the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 is unclear. We compared the economic evaluation of different laboratory diagnostic interventions with each other and also with implementing the conservative CDC & WHO guidelines. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Electronic searches were conducted on PubMed, Embase, Science Direct, Scopus, Cochrane Library, Web of Knowledge, NHSEED, NHS Health Technology assessment (CRD), and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry databases. Related articles were reviewed from January 2020 to the end of November 2021. RESULTS: Out of 1791 initial studies, 13 articles had the inclusion criteria. According to the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist, ten studies were of excellent quality, and the remaining two studies were of very good quality. Most studies were cost-effectiveness analysis studies. The entered studies had different time horizons. Diagnostic tests reviewed in the studies included real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test, immunoglobulin G (IgG) & Antigen, point of care tests. Although polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing improves the quality of life and survival for patients with infected Covid-19 based on its greater effectiveness compared to standard protection protocols, due to the high cost of this intervention, it has been considered a cost-effective method in some countries. CONCLUSION: Since most studies have been conducted in developed countries, it unquestionably does not make sense to extend these results to low-income and developing countries. Therefore further studies are required in low-income and developing countries to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of laboratory-based diagnostic methods (RT-PCR) of covid-19 in variable prevalence of infectious cases.

Cost-effectiveness of osimertinib in the treatment of advanced EGFR-mutated non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The most common type of lung cancer is advanced and mutant non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Although targeted tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) have reconstructed the care of these patients, the resistance of TKIs to the secondary EGFR-T790M mutation in advanced or metastatic NSCLC led to the introduction of the third generation of them, like osimertinib. Osimertinib has represented a remarkable increase in progression-free survival (PFS) and a decrease in death and hazard ratios in patients with required T790 mutation and sensitizing EGFR mutation without T790M. We aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of osimertinib for the treatment of these patients compared to chemotherapy or immunotherapy with the last generations of EGFR-TKIs. AREAS COVERED: Electronic searches were conducted on PubMed, Embase, Science Direct, Scopus, , Web of Knowledge, NHSEED, NHS Health Technology assessment (CRD), and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry databases. Related articles were reviewed from January 2015 to the end of August 2020. Out of 2708 initial studies, 10 articles had the inclusion criteria. EXPERT OPINION: Although osimertinib improves the quality of life and PFS for the mentioned patients based on its greater efficacy compared to standard EGFR-TKIs and chemotherapy, its high cost prevents considering it a cost-effective option. And, since most entered studies have been done in developed countries, it certainly does not true to extend these results to low-income and developing countries. Therefore, further studies in those countries are needed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of osimertinib for sensitizing EGFR mutation without T790M and required T790M in advanced or metastatic NSCLC.

Economic evaluation of ivabradine in treatment of patients with heart failure: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Chronic heart failure (CHF) is a clinical status and a progressive health disorder extremely related to increased morbidity and mortality worldwide. Accordingly, this study aimed to assess systematic review of literature on cost-effectiveness done in patients with heart failure receiving Ivabradine plus standard treatment compared with standard treatment alone. AREAS COVERED: This study is a systematic review in which all published articles related to the study topic were assessed in time range of 2014-2020. In order to find articles, internet search in foreign databases of PubMed, Embase, ISI/Web of Science (WoS), SCOPUS, Global Health databases, through keywords related to the objective was performed. Six articles out of 1524 article related to final topic were assessed. In addition, quality of studies was evaluated using CHEERS checklist. In six countries investigated (Iran, Thailand, Australia, United States of America, United Kingdom, and Greece), willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds higher cost per QALY, and highest ICER for Ivabradine was in USA (55,600 $/QALY) and the lowest was in Thailand (10,616$/QALY). Most items of CHEERS were estimated in the studies and studies had good quality. EXPERT OPINION: Regarding our investigation, ivabradine combined with standard care was more cost-effective than standard care alone in most of the evaluated studies, although the cost of this intervention was higher than its effectiveness. However, the threshold chosen by each country can have a significant impact on these results. And to have a more accurate result, it is required to pay more attention to the income level in different countries.