Literature DB >> 33441153

QALY league table of Iran: a practical method for better resource allocation.

Reza Hashempour1, Behzad Raei1, Majid Safaei Lari1, Nasrin Abolhasanbeigi Gallezan2, Ali AkbariSari3.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The limited health care resources cannot meet all the demands of the society. Thus, decision makers have to choose feasible interventions and reject the others. We aimed to collect and summarize the results of all cost utility analysis studies that were conducted in Iran and develop a Quality Adjusted Life Year (QALY) league table.
METHODS: A systematic mapping review was conducted to identify all cost utility analysis studies done in Iran and then map them in a table. PubMed, Embase, Cochrane library, Web of Science, as well as Iranian databases like Iran Medex, SID, Magiran, and Barakat Knowledge Network System were all searched for articles published from the inception of the databases to January 2020. Additionally, Cost per QALY or Incremental Cost Utility Ratio (ICUR) were collected from all studies. The Joanna Briggs checklist was used to assess quality appraisal.
RESULTS: In total, 51 cost-utility studies were included in the final analysis, out of which 14 studies were on cancer, six studies on coronary heart diseases. Two studies, each on hemophilia, multiple sclerosis and rheumatoid arthritis. The rest were on various other diseases. Markov model was the commonest one which has been applied to in 45% of the reviewed studies. Discount rates ranged from zero to 7.2%. The cost per QALY ranged from $ 0.144 in radiography costs for patients with some orthopedic problems to $ 4,551,521 for immune tolerance induction (ITI) therapy in hemophilia patients. High heterogeneity was revealed; therefore, it would be biased to rank interventions based on reported cost per QALY or ICUR.
CONCLUSIONS: However, it is instructive and informative to collect all economic evaluation studies and summarize them in a table. The information on the table would in turn be used to redirect resources for efficient allocation. in general, it was revealed that preventive programs are cost effective interventions from different perspectives in Iran.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cost effectiveness analysis; Cost utility analysis; Economic evaluation; Iran

Year:  2021        PMID: 33441153      PMCID: PMC7807517          DOI: 10.1186/s12962-020-00256-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cost Eff Resour Alloc        ISSN: 1478-7547


  35 in total

1.  Cost-effectiveness of a new rotavirus vaccination program in Pakistan: a decision tree model.

Authors:  Hiten D Patel; Eric T Roberts; Dagna O Constenla
Journal:  Vaccine       Date:  2013-10-29       Impact factor: 3.641

2.  Are current cost-effectiveness thresholds for low- and middle-income countries useful? Examples from the world of vaccines.

Authors:  A T Newall; M Jit; R Hutubessy
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2014-06       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 3.  Cost-Effectiveness Thresholds: the Past, the Present and the Future.

Authors:  Praveen Thokala; Jessica Ochalek; Ashley A Leech; Thaison Tong
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2018-05       Impact factor: 4.981

4.  Cost-effectiveness of interventions to prevent cardiovascular disease in Australia's indigenous population.

Authors:  Katherine S Ong; Rob Carter; Theo Vos; Margaret Kelaher; Ian Anderson
Journal:  Heart Lung Circ       Date:  2013-10-29       Impact factor: 2.975

5.  Constrained Optimization Methods in Health Services Research-An Introduction: Report 1 of the ISPOR Optimization Methods Emerging Good Practices Task Force.

Authors:  William Crown; Nasuh Buyukkaramikli; Praveen Thokala; Alec Morton; Mustafa Y Sir; Deborah A Marshall; Jon Tosh; William V Padula; Maarten J Ijzerman; Peter K Wong; Kalyan S Pasupathy
Journal:  Value Health       Date:  2017-03       Impact factor: 5.725

6.  Thresholds for the cost-effectiveness of interventions: alternative approaches.

Authors:  Elliot Marseille; Bruce Larson; Dhruv S Kazi; James G Kahn; Sydney Rosen
Journal:  Bull World Health Organ       Date:  2014-12-15       Impact factor: 9.408

7.  Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement.

Authors:  David Moher; Larissa Shamseer; Mike Clarke; Davina Ghersi; Alessandro Liberati; Mark Petticrew; Paul Shekelle; Lesley A Stewart
Journal:  Syst Rev       Date:  2015-01-01

8.  A comparison of hierarchical cluster analysis and league table rankings as methods for analysis and presentation of district health system performance data in Uganda.

Authors:  Christine K Tashobya; Dominique Dubourg; Freddie Ssengooba; Niko Speybroeck; Jean Macq; Bart Criel
Journal:  Health Policy Plan       Date:  2015-05-28       Impact factor: 3.344

9.  Ranking 93 health interventions for low- and middle-income countries by cost-effectiveness.

Authors:  Susan Horton; Hellen Gelband; Dean Jamison; Carol Levin; Rachel Nugent; David Watkins
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-08-10       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Cost-Effectiveness of Intensive Vs. Standard Follow-Up Models for Patients with Breast Cancer in Shiraz, Iran

Authors:  Nahid Hatam; Niloofar Ahmadloo; Mina Vazirzadeh; Abdossaleh Jafari; Mehrdad Askarian
Journal:  Asian Pac J Cancer Prev       Date:  2016-12-01
View more
  1 in total

Review 1.  Economic evaluation of medical versus surgical strategies for first trimester therapeutic abortion: A systematic review.

Authors:  Saeed Husseini Barghazan; Mohamad Hadian; Aziz Rezapour; Setare Nassiri
Journal:  J Educ Health Promot       Date:  2022-06-30
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.