Metered‐dose inhalers vs nebulization for the delivery of albuterol in pediatric asthma exacerbations: A cost‐effectiveness analysis in a middle‐income country

2020 ◽  
Vol 55 (4) ◽  
pp. 866-873 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carlos E. Rodriguez‐Martinez ◽  
Monica P. Sossa‐Briceño ◽  
Jose A. Castro‐Rodriguez
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Pediatric Asthma ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Middle Income Country ◽  
Income Country ◽  
Metered Dose Inhalers ◽  
Middle Income ◽  
Asthma Exacerbations ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Metered Dose

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness analysis of a multicomponent meningococcal serogroup B vaccine in hypothetic epidemic situation in a middle-income country

2015 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. 875-883 ◽  
Author(s):  
Giannina Izquierdo ◽  
Juan Pablo Torres ◽  
M Elena Santolaya ◽  
M Teresa Valenzuela ◽  
Jeannette Vega ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Middle Income Country ◽  
Income Country ◽  
Middle Income ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis

Dexamethasone or prednisolone for asthma exacerbations in children: A cost‐effectiveness analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 55 (7) ◽  
pp. 1617-1623
Author(s):  
Carlos E. Rodriguez‐Martinez ◽  
Monica P. Sossa‐Briceño ◽  
Jose A. Castro‐Rodriguez
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Asthma Exacerbations ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis

scholarly journals Bridging the gap: aligning economic research with disease burden

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (6) ◽  
pp. e005673
Author(s):  
Lauren A Do ◽  
Patricia G Synnott ◽  
Siyu Ma ◽  
Daniel A Ollendorf
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Low Income ◽  
Disease Burden ◽  
Ordinary Least Squares ◽  
Middle Income Country ◽  
Income Country ◽  
Economic Research ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Middle Income ◽  
Essential Interventions

IntroductionCost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) is critical for identifying high-value interventions that address significant unmet need. This study examines whether CEA study volume is proportionate to the burden associated with 21 major disease categories.MethodsWe searched the Tufts Medical Center CEA and Global Health CEA Registries for studies published between 2010 and 2019 that measured cost per quality-adjusted life-year or cost per disability-adjusted life-year (DALY). Stratified by geographical region and country income level, the relationship between literature volume and disease burden (as measured by 2019 Global Burden of Disease estimates of population DALYs) was analysed using ordinary least squares linear regression. Additionally, the number of CEAs per intervention deemed ‘essential’ for universal health coverage by the Disease Control Priorities Network was assessed to evaluate how many interventions are supported by cost-effectiveness evidence.ResultsThe results located below the regression line but with relatively high burden suggested disease areas that were ‘understudied’ compared with expected study volume. Understudied disease areas varied by region. Higher-income and upper-middle-income country (HUMIC) CEA volume for non-communicable diseases (eg, mental/behavioural disorders) was 100-fold higher than that in low-income and lower-middle-income countries (LLMICs). LLMIC study volume remained concentrated in HIV/AIDS as well as other communicable and neglected tropical diseases. Across 60 essential interventions, only 33 had any supporting CEA evidence, and only 21 had a decision context involving a low-income or middle-income country. With the exception of one intervention, available CEA evidence revealed the 21 interventions to be cost-effective, with base-case findings less than three times the GDP per capita.ConclusionOur analysis highlights disease areas that require significant policy attention. Research gaps for highly prevalent, lethal or disabling diseases, as well as essential interventions may be stifling potential efficiency gains. Large research disparities between HUMICs and LLMICs suggest funding opportunities for improving allocative efficiency in LLMIC health systems.

scholarly journals Comparing the cost-per-QALYs gained and cost-per-DALYs averted literatures

2018 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
pp. 5 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter J. Neumann ◽  
Jordan E. Anderson ◽  
Ari D. Panzer ◽  
Elle F. Pope ◽  
Brittany N. D'Cruz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
English Language ◽  
Medical Center ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life Year ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Middle Income ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Global Cost ◽  
Study Characteristics ◽  
The Cost

Background: We examined the similarities and differences between studies using two common metrics used in cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs): cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained and cost per disability-adjusted life year (DALY) averted. Methods: We used the Tufts Medical Center CEA Registry, which contains English-language cost-per-QALY gained studies, and the Global Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (GHCEA) Registry, which contains cost-per-DALY averted studies. We examined study characteristics, including intervention type, sponsor, country, and primary disease, and also compared the number of published CEAs to disease burden for major diseases and conditions across geographic regions. Results: We identified 6,438 cost-per-QALY and 543 cost-per-DALY studies published through 2016 and observed rapid growth for both literatures. Cost-per-QALY studies most often examined pharmaceuticals and interventions in high-income countries. Cost-per-DALY studies predominantly focused on infectious disease interventions and interventions in low and lower-middle income countries. We found that while diseases imposing a larger burden tend to receive more attention in the cost-effectiveness analysis literature, the number of publications for some diseases and conditions deviates from this pattern, suggesting “under-studied” conditions (e.g., neonatal disorders) and “over-studied” conditions (e.g., HIV and TB). Conclusions: The CEA literature has grown rapidly, with applications to diverse interventions and diseases.  The publication of fewer studies than expected for some diseases given their imposed burden suggests funding opportunities for future cost-effectiveness research.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document