The effectiveness of interventions to reduce the household economic burden of illness and injury: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the nature, scope and effectiveness of interventions to reduce the household economic burden of illness or injury. METHODS: We systematically reviewed reports published on or before 31 January 2014 that we found in the CENTRAL, CINAHL, Econlit, Embase, MEDLINE, PreMEDLINE and PsycINFO databases. We extracted data from prospective controlled trials and assessed the risk of bias. We narratively synthesized evidence. FINDINGS: Nine of the 4330 studies checked met our inclusion criteria ­ seven had evaluated changes to existing health-insurance programmes and two had evaluated different modes of delivering information. The only interventions found to reduce out-of-pocket expenditure significantly were those that eliminated or substantially reduced co-payments for a given patient population. However, the reductions only represented marginal changes in the total expenditures of patients. We found no studies that had been effective in addressing broader household economic impacts ­ such as catastrophic health expenditure ­ in the disease populations investigated. CONCLUSION: In general, interventions designed to reduce the complex household economic burden of illness and injury appear to have had little impact on household economies. We only found a few relevant studies using rigorous study designs that were conducted in defined patient populations. The studies were limited in the range of interventions tested and they evaluated only a narrow range of household economic outcomes. There is a need for method development to advance the measurement of the household economic consequences of illness and injury and facilitate the development of innovative interventions to supplement the strategies based on health insurance.

Fixed-combination, low-dose, triple-pill antihypertensive medication versus usual care in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension in Sri Lanka: a within-trial and modelled economic evaluation of the TRIUMPH trial.

BACKGROUND: Elevated blood pressure incurs a major health and economic burden, particularly in low-income and middle-income countries. The Triple Pill versus Usual Care Management for Patients with Mild-to-Moderate Hypertension (TRIUMPH) trial showed a greater reduction in blood pressure in patients using fixed-combination, low-dose, triple-pill antihypertensive therapy (consisting of amlodipine, telmisartan, and chlorthalidone) than in those receiving usual care in Sri Lanka. We aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of the triple-pill strategy. METHODS: We did a within-trial (6-month) and modelled (10-year) economic evaluation of the TRIUMPH trial, using the health system perspective. Health-care costs, reported in 2017 US dollars, were determined from trial records and published literature. A discrete-time simulation model was developed, extrapolating trial findings of reduced systolic blood pressure to 10-year health-care costs, cardiovascular disease events, and mortality. The primary outcomes were the proportion of people reaching blood pressure targets (at 6 months from baseline) and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) averted (at 10 years from baseline). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated to estimate the cost per additional participant achieving target blood pressure at 6 months and cost per DALY averted over 10 years. FINDINGS: The triple-pill strategy, compared with usual care, cost an additional US$9·63 (95% CI 5·29 to 13·97) per person in the within-trial analysis and $347·75 (285·55 to 412·54) per person in the modelled analysis. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were estimated at $7·93 (95% CI 6·59 to 11·84) per participant reaching blood pressure targets at 6 months and $2842·79 (-28·67 to 5714·24) per DALY averted over a 10-year period. INTERPRETATION: Compared with usual care, the triple-pill strategy is cost-effective for patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension. Scaled up investment in the triple pill for hypertension management in Sri Lanka should be supported to address the high population burden of cardiovascular disease. FUNDING: Australian National Health and Medical Research Council.