Evaluating Health Expenditure Trends and Disease Burden in India: A Cost per DALY Approach.

Background: Efficient allocation of healthcare resources requires a comprehensive evaluation of healthcare spending and its impact on disease burden. This study aims to estimate the costs-per disability-adjusted life years (DALY) in India. Data from 2010 to 2019 on DALYs and health expenditure per capita (HEp) for individual states in India were utilised. Design and Methods: We followed the CHEERS statement 2022 to present our study's methodology and outcomes. Pearson's product-moment correlations were used to analyse associations between DALYs and HEp. A panel regression analysis was conducted using a log regression model to estimate changes in DALYs due to health expenditure changes. All costs are reported in Indian rupee (₹) along with its 95% CI, with a conversion factor of 1 US$ = ₹82.4 applied. Results: The costs-per-DALY were estimated for each state and India. DALY was negatively correlated with HEp. The estimated mean cost-per-DALY for India was ₹82,112 (₹55,810 to ₹1,08,413) [$997 ($667 to $1316)]. The mean cost per-DALY varied across states, with value of ₹27,058 (₹22,250 to ₹31,866) [$328 ($270 to $387)] for states in the first quartile based on Human Development Index (HDI) and ₹2,69,175 (₹1,05,946 to ₹4,32,404) [$3267 ($1286 to $5248)] for those in fourth HDI quartile. States such as Gujarat (0.16), Karnataka (0.17) and Maharashtra (0.22) have lower, and Arunachal Pradesh has the highest cost-per-DALY to Gross state domestic product per-capita ratio (2.41), followed by Nagaland (1.45). Conclusion: Higher healthcare investment has a lower disease burden; however, reduction in DALY varies across states. Study findings provide evidence to aid the setting up of differential willingness-to-pay thresholds across Indian states for efficient and equitable healthcare resource allocation.

Cost Effectiveness of Deep Brain Stimulation for Parkinson's Disease: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Deep brain stimulation (DBS) is an established treatment for Parkinson's disease (PD) in patients with advanced motor symptoms with an inadequate response to pharmacotherapies. Despite its effectiveness, the cost effectiveness of DBS remains a subject of debate. This systematic review aims to update and synthesize evidence on the cost effectiveness of DBS for PD. METHODS: To identify full economic evaluations that compared the cost effectiveness of DBS with other best medical treatments, a comprehensive search was conducted of the PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Tufts Cost-Effective Analysis registry databases. The selected papers were systematically reviewed, and the results were summarized. For the quality appraisal, we used the modified economic evaluations bias checklist. The review protocol was a priori registered with PROSPERO, CRD42022345508. RESULTS: Sixteen identified cost-utility analyses that reported 19 comparisons on the use of DBS for PD were systematically reviewed. The studies were primarily conducted in high-income countries and employed Markov models. The costs considered were direct costs: surgical expenses, calibration, pulse generator replacement, and annual drug expenses. The majority of studies used country-specific thresholds. Fourteen comparisons from 12 studies reported on the cost effectiveness of DBS compared to best medical treatments. Eleven comparisons reported DBS as cost effective based on incremental cost-utility ratio results. CONCLUSIONS: The cost effectiveness of DBS for PD varies by time horizon, costs considered, threshold utilized, and stage of PD progression. Standardizing approaches and comparing DBS with other treatments are needed for future research on effective PD management.

Household catastrophic health expenditures for rheumatoid arthritis: a single centre study from South India.

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) not only has a physical and emotional toll but also has a substantial economic impact. This study aims to estimate the burden of catastrophic health expenditure (CHE) on households due to RA in Tamil Nadu, India. We conducted cross-sectional descriptive hospital-based single-centre study at a tertiary care private multispecialty hospital in Tamil Nadu, India. The study comprised 320 RA patients who visited the outpatient clinic from April to October 2022. Demographic and baseline descriptive characteristics were reported. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to identify major determinants associated with CHE. We also examined the inequality in household annual income and CHE. Most study participants were females (88.1%) with a mean age (SD) of 55.57 ± 12.29 years. About 93% of RA patients were from urban areas, and 89.4% were literate. Only 8.1% of respondents reported having health insurance. Households experiencing CHE owing to RA were 51.4% (n = 162). The mean (95% CI) annual health expenditure for treating RA is ₹44,700 (₹41,710 to 47,690) with a median (IQR) of ₹39,210 (₹25,500) [$476 ($310)]. The corresponding mean (95% CI) and median (IQR) Out of pocket expenditure among RA patients per household were ₹40,698 (₹38,249 to 43,148) [$494 ($464 to $524)] and ₹36,450 (23,070) [$442 ($280)] respectively. Nearly half of the households with RA patients had a financial catastrophe due to healthcare costs being paid out-of-pocket and limited health insurance coverage. The results underscore the need for comprehensive approaches to strengthening public health policies along with financial risk protection and quality care in India.

Cost Effectiveness of Rituximab Therapy for Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Cost-Utility Studies.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Depletion of B cells is shown to be clinically effective for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treatment. Although B-cell depletion therapy with rituximab is indicated for RA patients who have failed to other disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs), primary cost-effectiveness evidence is inconsistent. We aimed to provide synthesised cost-effectiveness evidence of rituximab in the treatment of RA compared to other DMARDs, since the published cost-effectiveness evidence is mixed. METHODS: We identified economic evaluation studies reporting cost-utility of rituximab compared to other DMARDs by searching PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Tufts Cost-Effective Analysis registry. Using random-effects meta-analysis, we pooled incremental net benefit (INB) in (purchasing power parity) adjusted US$ with 95% confidence intervals. We used the modified economic evaluations bias checklist and Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) instrument for quality appraisal. The study protocol was pre-registered with PROSPERO, CRD 42021222541. RESULTS: Of the selected 18 studies, the majority were from high-income countries (n = 14) followed by upper middle-income countries (n = 3) and lower middle-income countries (n = 1), with minimal risk of bias. Rituximab is significantly cost effective with a pooled INB (95% CI) of $8767 (720 to 16,814). On subgroup analysis, rituximab is significantly cost effective from a health system perspective [$12,832 (3392 to 22,272)], for studies using 3.5% discount rate [$15,468 (5973 to 24,963)] and a for a time horizon of less than 5 years [$8496 (1547 to 15,445)]. In a separate analysis, rituximab as third-line therapy (for conventional synthetic DMARDs followed by any other biologic DMARD failed patients) was not cost effective compared to DMARDs [$5314 (-2278 to 12,905)]. Further, the GRADE assessment indicated very-low confidence in the pooled results. CONCLUSION: Rituximab is cost effective compared to other DMARDs but not if used as third-line therapy after failure of biologics. There is a need to generate context-specific evidence for the lower income settings.

Cost-effectiveness of janus kinase inhibitors for rheumatoid arthritis: A systematic review and meta-analysis of cost-utility studies.

Introduction: Janus kinase inhibitors (JAK-i), a class of targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (tDMARDs), are suggested as second or third-line therapies in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Synthesized cost-effective evidence would aid in informed decision-making given the similar clinical effectiveness of JAKi, but incongruent cost-effectiveness reports. Methods: Literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Tufts Medical Centers' cost-effective analysis registry. We pooled the incremental net benefit (INB) with 95% confidence interval (CI) using random-effects model and the heterogeneity was assessed using Cochrane-Q test and I2 statistic. Modified economic evaluation bias checklist was used to assess the quality of selected studies. Publication bias was assessed using a funnel plot and Egger's test. The Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) assessment was performed to assess the certainty of outcomes presented. Results: We included seventeen relevant studies for systematic review, of which fifteen were eligible for meta-analysis. The meta-analysis results showed that JAK-i is cost-effective compared to csDMARDS/bDMARDs with a pooled INB (INBp) of $19,886 (95% CI, 1,635 to 38,137) but with considerable heterogeneity (I2 = 99.14). As a second-line treatment for csDMARD failed RA, JAK-i is cost-effective than csDMARD/bDMARD with a pooled INB of $23,144 (74.1-46,214) and high heterogeneity (I2 = 99.67). But on a separate analysis JAK-i as second-line treatment is not cost-effective than TNF-a-i (INBp = $25,813, -5,714 to 57,340). However, leave-one-out analysis found that omitting a single outlier makes JAK-i cost-effective. Further, JAK-i is not cost-effective as a third-line treatment for csDMARD-TNF-a-I failed RA, compared to csDMARDs/bDMARDs with INBp $26,157 (-7,284 to 59,598). Conclusion: Meta-analysis suggests that JAK-i is cost-effective when used after csDMARD failure but not cost-effective when used after csDMARD-TNF-a-i failure with low certainty of evidence. Clinical Trial Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021222541, identifier CRD42021222541.

Is State-Wise Healthcare Budget Allocation Consistent With the Disease Burden in India? A Quinquennial Account (2015-2019).

Introduction: Evidence-based resource allocation may help to achieve immense health gains in resource-limited settings like India. Understanding healthcare expenditure and the corresponding disease burden could provide insights to plan optimal allocation of limited resources. Hence, we aimed to investigate the status and trends of state-wise healthcare budget allocation and the corresponding disease burden. Methods: We retrieved state-wise healthcare budget allocation information in India for the years 2015 to 2019. Corresponding state-wise disability-adjusted-life-year (DALY) estimates from the Global Burden of Disease, injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) was used to measure disease burden. The allocated budget (in rupees) per DALY was calculated for overall, communicable, and non-communicable diseases (NCDs). Descriptive statistics, correlation and graphical representations were used to identify and evaluate the trends and relationships between state-wise health budget allocation and disease burden. Results: The allocated budget per DALY in 2019 was highest for Goa ( 34,260 or US$ 486.66) and lowest for Bihar ( 2,408 or US $ 34.20). Smaller, less populous states had higher budget allocations per DALY than larger states. Health budget allocation had an inverse relationship with infectious diseases and an identical linear relationship with NCDs. Most state-wise health budget allocations, as well as total disease burden, increased over the years except for Assam, Karnataka, and Himachal Pradesh. Also, such trends are not similar for the injuries and NCD disease burden. Discussion: The health budget allocation is variable across states as well as between infectious and NCDs. The current increase in the allocated budget is incongruent with the increasing disease burden. There is a need for rapid expansion of healthcare resource allocation guided by evidence in India.

Cost-effectiveness of Ezetimibe plus statin lipid-lowering therapy: A systematic review and meta-analysis of cost-utility studies.

In addition to statin therapy, Ezetimibe, a non-statin lipid-modifying agent, is increasingly used to reduce low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk. Literature suggests the clinical effectiveness of Ezetimibe plus statin (EPS) therapy; however, primary evidence on its economic effectiveness is inconsistent. Hence, we pooled incremental net benefit to synthesise the cost-effectiveness of EPS therapy. We identified economic evaluation studies reporting outcomes of EPS therapy compared with other lipid-lowering therapeutic agents or placebo by searching PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Tufts Cost-Effective Analysis registry. Using random-effects meta-analysis, we pooled Incremental Net Benefit (INB) in the US $ with a 95% confidence interval (CI). We used the modified economic evaluations bias checklist and GRADE quality assessment for quality appraisal. The pooled INB from twenty-one eligible studies showed that EPS therapy was significantly cost-effective compared to other lipid-lowering therapeutic agents or placebo. The pooled INB (95% CI) was $4,274 (621 to 7,927), but there was considerable heterogeneity (I2 = 84.21). On subgroup analysis EPS therapy is significantly cost-effective in high-income countries [$4,356 (621 to 8,092)], for primary prevention [$4,814 (2,523 to 7,106)], and for payers' perspective [$3,255 (571 to 5,939)], and from lifetime horizon [$4,571 (746 to 8,395)]. EPS therapy is cost-effective compared to other lipid-lowering therapeutic agents or placebo in high-income countries and for primary prevention. However, there is a dearth of evidence from lower-middle-income countries and the societal perspective.