UNASSIGNED: We compared the relative benefits, harms and cost-effectiveness of hyperthermic intraoperative peritoneal chemotherapy + cytoreductive surgery ± systemic chemotherapy versus cytoreductive surgery ± systemic chemotherapy or systemic chemotherapy alone in people with peritoneal metastases from colorectal, gastric or ovarian cancers by a systematic review, meta-analysis and model-based cost-utility analysis.
UNASSIGNED: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and the Science Citation Index, ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO ICTRP trial registers until 14 April 2022. We included only randomised controlled trials addressing the research objectives. We used the Cochrane risk of bias tool version 2 to assess the risk of bias in randomised controlled trials. We used the random-effects model for data synthesis when applicable. For the cost-effectiveness analysis, we performed a model-based cost-utility analysis using methods recommended by The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence.
UNASSIGNED: The systematic review included a total of eight randomised controlled trials (seven randomised controlled trials, 955 participants included in the quantitative analysis). All comparisons other than those for stage III or greater epithelial ovarian cancer contained only one trial, indicating the paucity of randomised controlled trials that provided data. For colorectal cancer, hyperthermic intraoperative peritoneal chemotherapy + cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy probably results in little to no difference in all-cause mortality (60.6% vs. 60.6%; hazard ratio 1.00, 95% confidence interval 0.63 to 1.58) and may increase the serious adverse event proportions compared to cytoreductive surgery ± systemic chemotherapy (25.6% vs. 15.2%; risk ratio 1.69, 95% confidence interval 1.03 to 2.77). Hyperthermic intraoperative peritoneal chemotherapy + cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy probably decreases all-cause mortality compared to fluorouracil-based systemic chemotherapy alone (40.8% vs. 60.8%; hazard ratio 0.55, 95% confidence interval 0.32 to 0.95). For gastric cancer, there is high uncertainty about the effects of hyperthermic intraoperative peritoneal chemotherapy + cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy versus cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy or systemic chemotherapy alone on all-cause mortality. For stage III or greater epithelial ovarian cancer undergoing interval cytoreductive surgery, hyperthermic intraoperative peritoneal chemotherapy + cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy probably decreases all-cause mortality compared to cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy (46.3% vs. 57.4%; hazard ratio 0.73, 95% confidence interval 0.57 to 0.93). Hyperthermic intraoperative peritoneal chemotherapy + cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy may not be cost-effective versus cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy for colorectal cancer but may be cost-effective for the remaining comparisons.
UNASSIGNED: We were unable to obtain individual participant data as planned. The limited number of randomised controlled trials for each comparison and the paucity of data on health-related quality of life mean that the recommendations may change as new evidence (from trials with a low risk of bias) emerges.
UNASSIGNED: In people with peritoneal metastases from colorectal cancer with limited peritoneal metastases and who are likely to withstand major surgery, hyperthermic intraoperative peritoneal chemotherapy + cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy should not be used in routine clinical practice (strong recommendation). There is considerable uncertainty as to whether hyperthermic intraoperative peritoneal chemotherapy + cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy or cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy should be offered to patients with gastric cancer and peritoneal metastases (no recommendation). Hyperthermic intraoperative peritoneal chemotherapy + cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy should be offered routinely to women with stage III or greater epithelial ovarian cancer and metastases confined to the abdomen requiring and likely to withstand interval cytoreductive surgery after chemotherapy (strong recommendation).
UNASSIGNED: More randomised controlled trials are necessary.
UNASSIGNED: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42019130504.
UNASSIGNED: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 17/135/02) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 51. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.
Cancers of the bowel, ovary or stomach can spread to the lining of the abdomen (‘peritoneal metastases’). Chemotherapy (the use of drugs that aim to kill cancer cells) given by injection or tablets (‘systemic chemotherapy’) is one of the main treatment options. There is uncertainty about whether adding cytoreductive surgery (cytoreductive surgery; an operation to remove the cancer) and ‘hyperthermic intraoperative peritoneal chemotherapy’ (warm chemotherapy delivered into the lining of the abdomen during cytoreductive surgery) are beneficial. We reviewed all the information from medical literature published until 14 April 2022, to answer the above uncertainty. We found the following from eight trials, including about 1000 participants. In people with peritoneal metastases from bowel cancer, hyperthermic intraoperative peritoneal chemotherapy + cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy probably does not provide any benefits and increases harm compared to cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy, while cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy appears to increase survival compared to systemic chemotherapy alone. There is uncertainty about the best treatment for people with peritoneal metastases from stomach cancer. In women with peritoneal metastases from ovarian cancer who require systemic chemotherapy before cytoreductive surgery to shrink the cancer to allow surgery (‘advanced ovarian cancer’), hyperthermic intraoperative peritoneal chemotherapy + cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy probably increases survival compared to cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy. In people who can withstand a major operation and in whom cancer can be removed, cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy should be offered to people with peritoneal metastases from bowel cancer, while hyperthermic intraoperative peritoneal chemotherapy + cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy should be offered to women with peritoneal metastases from ‘advanced ovarian cancer’. Uncertainty in treatment continues for gastric cancer. This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 17/135/02) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 51. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

UNASSIGNED: Renal cell carcinoma is the most common type of kidney cancer, comprising approximately 85% of all renal malignancies. Patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma are the focus of this National Institute for Health and Care Excellence multiple technology appraisal. A patient\'s risk of disease progression depends on a number of prognostic risk factors; patients are categorised as having intermediate/poor risk or favourable risk of disease progression.
UNASSIGNED: The objectives of this multiple technology appraisal were to appraise the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab versus relevant comparators listed in the final scope issued by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence: sunitinib, pazopanib, tivozanib, cabozantinib and nivolumab plus ipilimumab.
UNASSIGNED: The assessment group carried out clinical and economic systematic reviews and assessed the clinical and cost-effectiveness evidence submitted by Eisai, Hatfield, Hertfordshire, UK (the manufacturer of lenvatinib) and Merck Sharp & Dohme, Whitehouse Station, NJ, USA (the manufacturer of pembrolizumab). The assessment group carried out fixed-effects network meta-analyses using a Bayesian framework to generate evidence for clinical effectiveness. As convergence issues occurred due to sparse data, random-effects network meta-analysis results were unusable. The assessment group did not develop a de novo economic model, but instead modified the partitioned survival model provided by Merck Sharp & Dohme.
UNASSIGNED: The assessment group clinical systematic review identified one relevant randomised controlled trial (CLEAR trial). The CLEAR trial is a good-quality, phase III, multicentre, open-label trial that provided evidence for the efficacy and safety of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab compared with sunitinib. The assessment group progression-free survival network meta-analysis results for all three risk groups should not be used to infer any statistically significant difference (or lack of statistically significant difference) for any of the treatment comparisons owing to within-trial proportional hazards violations or uncertainty regarding the validity of the proportional hazards assumption. The assessment group overall survival network meta-analysis results for the intermediate-/poor-risk subgroup suggested that there was a numerical, but not statistically significant, improvement in the overall survival for patients treated with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab compared with patients treated with cabozantinib or nivolumab plus ipilimumab. Because of within-trial proportional hazards violations or uncertainty regarding the validity of the proportional hazards assumption, the assessment group overall survival network meta-analysis results for the favourable-risk subgroup and the all-risk population should not be used to infer any statistically significant difference (or lack of statistically significant difference) for any of the treatment comparisons. Only one cost-effectiveness study was included in the assessment group review of cost-effectiveness evidence. The study was limited to the all-risk population, undertaken from the perspective of the US healthcare system and included comparators that are not recommended by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence for patients with untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma. Therefore, the extent to which resource use and results are generalisable to the NHS is unclear. The assessment group cost-effectiveness results from the modified partitioned survival model focused on the intermediate-/poor-risk and favourable-risk subgroups. The assessment group cost-effectiveness results, generated using list prices for all drugs, showed that, for all comparisons in the favourable-risk subgroup, treatment with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab costs more and generated fewer benefits than all other treatments available to NHS patients. For the intermediate-/poor-risk subgroup, treatment with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab costs more and generated more benefits than treatment with cabozantinib and nivolumab plus ipilimumab.
UNASSIGNED: Good-quality clinical effectiveness evidence for the comparison of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab with sunitinib is available from the CLEAR trial. For most of the assessment group Bayesian hazard ratio network meta-analysis comparisons, it is difficult to reach conclusions due to within-trial proportional hazards violations or uncertainty regarding the validity of the proportional hazards assumption. However, the data (clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness) used to populate the economic model are relevant to NHS clinical practice and can be used to inform National Institute for Health and Care Excellence decision-making. The assessment group cost-effectiveness results, generated using list prices for all drugs, show that lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab is less cost-effective than all other treatment options.
UNASSIGNED: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD4202128587.
UNASSIGNED: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Evidence Synthesis Programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR134985) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 49. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.
Renal cell carcinoma is the most common type of kidney cancer. Several drug treatment options are available for NHS patients with advanced or metastatic disease, and the choice of treatment varies depending on a patient’s risk of disease progression. A new drug combination, lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab, may soon become available to treat NHS patients. This review explored whether treatment with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab offered value for money to the NHS. We reviewed the effectiveness of treatment with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab versus other NHS treatment options. We also estimated the costs and benefits of treatment with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab versus current NHS treatments for patients with higher and lower risks of disease progression. Compared with current NHS treatments, treatment with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab may increase the time that people with a higher risk of disease progression (i.e. worsening disease) were alive. However, for patients with a lower risk of disease progression, the available evidence is limited and only shows that treatment with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab may prolong the time that patients have a stable level of disease. For all patients, compared to all current NHS treatments, treatment with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab is very expensive. Compared with current NHS treatments for untreated renal cell carcinoma, using published prices (which do not include any discounts that are offered to the NHS), treatment with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab may not provide good value for money to the NHS.

UNASSIGNED: Lynch syndrome is an inherited condition which leads to an increased risk of colorectal, endometrial and ovarian cancer. Risk-reducing surgery is generally recommended to manage the risk of gynaecological cancer once childbearing is completed. The value of gynaecological colonoscopic surveillance as an interim measure or instead of risk-reducing surgery is uncertain. We aimed to determine whether gynaecological surveillance was effective and cost-effective in Lynch syndrome.
UNASSIGNED: We conducted systematic reviews of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of gynaecological cancer surveillance in Lynch syndrome, as well as a systematic review of health utility values relating to cancer and gynaecological risk reduction. Study identification included bibliographic database searching and citation chasing (searches updated 3 August 2021). Screening and assessment of eligibility for inclusion were conducted by independent researchers. Outcomes were prespecified and were informed by clinical experts and patient involvement. Data extraction and quality appraisal were conducted and results were synthesised narratively. We also developed a whole-disease economic model for Lynch syndrome using discrete event simulation methodology, including natural history components for colorectal, endometrial and ovarian cancer, and we used this model to conduct a cost-utility analysis of gynaecological risk management strategies, including surveillance, risk-reducing surgery and doing nothing.
UNASSIGNED: We found 30 studies in the review of clinical effectiveness, of which 20 were non-comparative (single-arm) studies. There were no high-quality studies providing precise outcome estimates at low risk of bias. There is some evidence that mortality rate is higher for surveillance than for risk-reducing surgery but mortality is also higher for no surveillance than for surveillance. Some asymptomatic cancers were detected through surveillance but some cancers were also missed. There was a wide range of pain experiences, including some individuals feeling no pain and some feeling severe pain. The use of pain relief (e.g. ibuprofen) was common, and some women underwent general anaesthetic for surveillance. Existing economic evaluations clearly found that risk-reducing surgery leads to the best lifetime health (measured using quality-adjusted life-years) and is cost-effective, while surveillance is not cost-effective in comparison. Our economic evaluation found that a strategy of surveillance alone or offering surveillance and risk-reducing surgery was cost-effective, except for path_PMS2 Lynch syndrome. Offering only risk-reducing surgery was less effective than offering surveillance with or without surgery.
UNASSIGNED: Firm conclusions about clinical effectiveness could not be reached because of the lack of high-quality research. We did not assume that women would immediately take up risk-reducing surgery if offered, and it is possible that risk-reducing surgery would be more effective and cost-effective if it was taken up when offered.
UNASSIGNED: There is insufficient evidence to recommend for or against gynaecological cancer surveillance in Lynch syndrome on clinical grounds, but modelling suggests that surveillance could be cost-effective. Further research is needed but it must be rigorously designed and well reported to be of benefit.
UNASSIGNED: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42020171098.
UNASSIGNED: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR129713) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 41. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.
Lynch syndrome is an inherited condition which puts people at a higher risk of getting bowel cancer, womb cancer and ovarian cancer. Although people with Lynch syndrome are more likely to get these cancers, they are more likely to survive cancer if they get it. People diagnosed with Lynch syndrome get regular testing (surveillance) using a camera to check for bowel cancer or polyps. For womb and ovarian cancer, surveillance may also be an option, but it is less well studied in these cancers. This means that many women are not offered surveillance. Women with Lynch syndrome are recommended to have risk-reducing surgery when their risk starts rising, if they do not want any more children. We wanted to find out whether surveillance for womb and ovarian cancer would work and would be good value for money. Doctors and patients have said that these are important research questions. We searched for published research on this subject and found a lot of studies, but these studies were often small or not well designed, so they could only tell us a limited amount. Studies did not always measure the things that patients want to know. There was some evidence that people having surveillance might live longer than people not having surveillance, but there was also some evidence that risk-reducing surgery is better than surveillance. Surveillance has detected some cancers which had no symptoms, but there are also cancers diagnosed soon after a surveillance visit where nothing was found. People often find surveillance painful, but experiences vary. Our work shows that surveillance and surgery could be good value for money for many women with Lynch syndrome. We need better research to help patients and doctors decide whether surveillance is right for them.

Cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA) are important in healthcare decision-making and resource allocation; however, expanding the scope of CEAs beyond the traditional clinicoeconomic concepts to also include value elements such as health equity has attracted much interest in recent years. This umbrella review aimed to synthesize evidence on how equity concepts have been considered in modified types of CEAs. Publicly available articles in MEDLINE were searched on January 25, 2024, to identify systematic reviews (SLRs) published in English since 2013 that incorporate health equity considerations in CEAs. Title/abstract, full-text article screening and data extraction were conducted by a single reviewer and validated by a second reviewer. Results were qualitatively synthesized to identify common themes. Eight SLRs were included. Distributional CEAs (DCEA), equity-based weighting, extended CEA (ECEA), mathematical programming and multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) were the most discussed approaches. A lack of consensus on the best approach for incorporating health equity into CEAs was highlighted, as these approaches are not currently consistently used in decision-making. Important limitations included scarcity of robust data to inform health equity indices, bias associated with commonly used health outcome metrics and the challenge of accounting for additional contextual factors such as fairness and opportunity costs. Proposals to expand CEAs to address equity issues come with challenges due to data unavailability, methods complexity, and decision-makers unfamiliarity with these approaches. Our review indicates that extended and distributional CEAs can support decision-making by capturing the impact of inequity on the clinical and cost-effectiveness assessment of treatments, although future modeling should account for additional contextual factors such as fairness and opportunity costs. Recommendations for actions moving forward include standardization of data collection for outcomes related to equity and familiarity with methodologies to account for the complexities of integrating health equity considerations in CEAs.

Medication errors, potentially causing harm and causing harm, increase significantly in newborns cared for in intensive care settings. In this sense, this work carries out a systematic review to analyze the most current evidence in relation to medication errors in neonatal intensive care, discussing the topics that refer to health technology from smart pumps, cost-effectiveness of medications, the practice of nursing professionals on the medication administration process and quality improvement models. In this way, it could be considered a useful tool to promote quality and safety in neonatal intensive care.

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) continue to be the primary cause of mortality globally and invariably in India as well. The rapid upsurge in the prevalence of CVDs in India has created a pressing need to promote contemporary, sustainable, and cost-effective interventions to tackle the CVD burden. This systematic review integrates the research-based evidence of the cost-effectiveness of various interventions that can be adapted to control CVDs in India.
METHODS: Databases, namely, PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Google Scholar, were searched for data on the economic evaluation of interventions targeting CVD based on the Indian population for a period of 30 years (1991-2021). Two reviewers assessed the articles for eligibility, and data were extracted from the shortlisted articles as per a predefined template, including the quantification of methodological aspects.
RESULTS: In total, 1249 studies were examined, out of which 23 completely met the inclusion criteria for full-text review. A total of 16 studies were based solely on the Indian population, while the rest (7) included South Asia/Asia for the intervention, of which India was a participant nation. Most of the economic evaluations targeted treatment-based or pharmacological interventions (14) for CVDs. The evaluations were based on Decision-based models (10), Randomized controlled Trials (RCTs) (9), and Observational studies (4). The cost-effectiveness ratio for the included studies exhibited a diverse range due to variations in methodological approaches, such as differences in study settings, populations, and inconsistencies in study design. The mean ICER (Incremental Cost-effectiveness ratio) for primordial and primary preventions was found to be 3073.8 (US $2022) and 17489.9 (US $2022), respectively. Moreover, the combined mean value for secondary and tertiary prevention was 2029.6 (US$2022).
CONCLUSIONS: The economic evidence of public health interventions are expanding, but their focus is restricted towards pharmacological interventions. There is an urgency to emphasize primordial and primary prevention for better outcomes in health economics decision-making. Technology- based avenues for intervention need more exploration in order to cater to a large population like India.

UNASSIGNED: Parkinson\'s disease is a brain condition causing a progressive loss of co ordination and movement problems. Around 145,500 people have Parkinson\'s disease in the United Kingdom. Levodopa is the most prescribed treatment for managing motor symptoms in the early stages. Patients should be monitored by a specialist every 6-12 months for disease progression and treatment of adverse effects. Wearable devices may provide a novel approach to management by directly monitoring patients for bradykinesia, dyskinesia, tremor and other symptoms. They are intended to be used alongside clinical judgement.
UNASSIGNED: To determine the clinical and cost-effectiveness of five devices for monitoring Parkinson\'s disease: Personal KinetiGraph, Kinesia 360, KinesiaU, PDMonitor and STAT-ON.
UNASSIGNED: We performed systematic reviews of all evidence on the five devices, outcomes included: diagnostic accuracy, impact on decision-making, clinical outcomes, patient and clinician opinions and economic outcomes. We searched MEDLINE and 12 other databases/trial registries to February 2022. Risk of bias was assessed. Narrative synthesis was used to summarise all identified evidence, as the evidence was insufficient for meta-analysis. One included trial provided individual-level data, which was re-analysed. A de novo decision-analytic model was developed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of Personal KinetiGraph and Kinesia 360 compared to standard of care in the UK NHS over a 5-year time horizon. The base-case analysis considered two alternative monitoring strategies: one-time use and routine use of the device.
UNASSIGNED: Fifty-seven studies of Personal KinetiGraph, 15 of STAT-ON, 3 of Kinesia 360, 1 of KinesiaU and 1 of PDMonitor were included. There was some evidence to suggest that Personal KinetiGraph can accurately measure bradykinesia and dyskinesia, leading to treatment modification in some patients, and a possible improvement in clinical outcomes when measured using the Unified Parkinson\'s Disease Rating Scale. The evidence for STAT-ON suggested it may be of value for diagnosing symptoms, but there is currently no evidence on its clinical impact. The evidence for Kinesia 360, KinesiaU and PDMonitor is insufficient to draw any conclusions on their value in clinical practice. The base-case results for Personal KinetiGraph compared to standard of care for one-time and routine use resulted in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of £67,856 and £57,877 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, respectively, with a beneficial impact of the Personal KinetiGraph on Unified Parkinson\'s Disease Rating Scale domains III and IV. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio results for Kinesia 360 compared to standard of care for one-time and routine use were £38,828 and £67,203 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, respectively.
UNASSIGNED: The evidence was limited in extent and often low quality. For all devices, except Personal KinetiGraph, there was little to no evidence on the clinical impact of the technology.
UNASSIGNED: Personal KinetiGraph could reasonably be used in practice to monitor patient symptoms and modify treatment where required. There is too little evidence on STAT-ON, Kinesia 360, KinesiaU or PDMonitor to be confident that they are clinically useful. The cost-effectiveness of remote monitoring appears to be largely unfavourable with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios in excess of £30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year across a range of alternative assumptions. The main driver of cost-effectiveness was the durability of improvements in patient symptoms.
UNASSIGNED: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42022308597.
UNASSIGNED: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Evidence Synthesis programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR135437) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 30. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.
Parkinson’s disease is a brain condition causing loss of co-ordination and movement problems. Levodopa is the most prescribed treatment for early disease. Patients should be seen by a specialist every 6–12 months to assess their treatment needs. Wearable devices (like smart watches) may aid management by directly monitoring patients for disease symptoms including tremor and slowness of movement (bradykinesia), or side effects of treatment like involuntary movement (dyskinesia). This assessment considered the clinical and economic value of five wearable devices: Personal KinetiGraph, STAT-ON, Kinesia 360, KinesiaU and PDMonitor. We searched medical databases to find all studies of the five devices. We assessed the quality of these studies and reviewed their results. We found 77 studies of the devices. There was some evidence to suggest that Personal KinetiGraph can accurately measure bradykinesia and dyskinesia, leading to treatment modification in some patients, and a possible improvement in symptoms. The evidence for STAT-ON suggested it may be of value for diagnosing symptoms, but there is currently no evidence on its clinical value. There was insufficient evidence for Kinesia 360, KinesiaU and PDMonitor to draw any conclusions. An economic analysis was conducted to investigate whether using any of these technologies is economically viable. The economic analysis found that the quality-of-life benefits generated by remote monitoring devices were small relative to the additional costs of implementing them in the NHS. As such, none of the remote monitoring devices were good value for money when compared with the current standard of care.

Rehabilitation technologies offer promising opportunities for interventions for patients with motor disabilities. However, their use in routine care remains limited due to their high cost and persistent doubts about their cost-effectiveness. Providing solid evidence of the economic efficiency of rehabilitation technologies would help dispel these doubts in order to better take advantage of these technologies. In this context, this systematic review aimed to examine the cost-effectiveness of rehabilitation interventions based on the use of digital technologies. In total, 660 articles published between 2011 and 2021 were identified, of which eleven studies met all the inclusion criteria. Of these eleven studies, seven proved to be cost-effective, while four were not. Four studies used cost-utility analyses (CUAs) and seven used cost-minimization analyses (CMAs). The majority (ten studies) focused on the rehabilitation of the upper and/or lower limbs after a stroke, while only one study examined the rehabilitation of the lower limbs after knee arthroplasty. Regarding the evaluated devices, seven studies analyzed the cost-effectiveness of robotic rehabilitation and four analyzed rehabilitation with virtual reality.The assessment of the quality of the included studies using the CHEERS (Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards) suggested that the quality was related to the economic analysis method: all studies that adopted a cost-utility analysis obtained a high quality score (above 80%), while the quality scores of the cost-minimization analyses were average, with the highest score obtained by a CMA being 72%. The average quality score of all the articles was 75%, ranging between 52 and 100. Of the four studies with a considering score, two concluded that there was equivalence between the intervention and conventional care in terms of cost-effectiveness, one concluded that the intervention dominated, while the last one concluded that usual care dominated. This suggests that even considering the quality of the included studies, rehabilitation interventions based on digital technologies remain cost-effective, they improved health outcomes and quality of life for patients with motor disorders while also allowing cost savings.

UNASSIGNED: Health economic assessments are used to determine whether the resources needed to generate net benefit from an antenatal or newborn screening programme, driven by multiple benefits and harms, are justifiable. It is not known what benefits and harms have been adopted by economic evaluations assessing these programmes and whether they omit benefits and harms considered important to relevant stakeholders.
UNASSIGNED: (1) To identify the benefits and harms adopted by health economic assessments in this area, and to assess how they have been measured and valued; (2) to identify attributes or relevance to stakeholders that ought to be considered in future economic assessments; and (3) to make recommendations about the benefits and harms that should be considered by these studies.
UNASSIGNED: Mixed methods combining systematic review and qualitative work.
UNASSIGNED: We searched the published and grey literature from January 2000 to January 2021 using all major electronic databases. Economic evaluations of an antenatal or newborn screening programme in one or more Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries were considered eligible. Reporting quality was assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards checklist. We identified benefits and harms using an integrative descriptive analysis and constructed a thematic framework.
UNASSIGNED: We conducted a meta-ethnography of the existing literature on newborn screening experiences, a secondary analysis of existing individual interviews related to antenatal or newborn screening or living with screened-for conditions, and a thematic analysis of primary data collected with stakeholders about their experiences with screening.
UNASSIGNED: The literature searches identified 52,244 articles and reports, and 336 unique studies were included. Thematic framework resulted in seven themes: (1) diagnosis of screened for condition, (2) life-years and health status adjustments, (3) treatment, (4) long-term costs, (5) overdiagnosis, (6) pregnancy loss and (7) spillover effects on family members. Diagnosis of screened-for condition (115, 47.5%), life-years and health status adjustments (90, 37.2%) and treatment (88, 36.4%) accounted for most of the benefits and harms evaluating antenatal screening. The same themes accounted for most of the benefits and harms included in studies assessing newborn screening. Long-term costs, overdiagnosis and spillover effects tended to be ignored. The wide-reaching family implications of screening were considered important to stakeholders. We observed good overlap between the thematic framework and the qualitative evidence.
UNASSIGNED: Dual data extraction within the systematic literature review was not feasible due to the large number of studies included. It was difficult to recruit healthcare professionals in the stakeholder\'s interviews.
UNASSIGNED: There is no consistency in the selection of benefits and harms used in health economic assessments in this area, suggesting that additional methods guidance is needed. Our proposed thematic framework can be used to guide the development of future health economic assessments evaluating antenatal and newborn screening programmes.
UNASSIGNED: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42020165236.
UNASSIGNED: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR127489) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 25. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.
Every year the NHS offers pregnant women screening tests to assess the chances of them or their unborn baby having or developing a health condition. It also offers screening tests for newborn babies to look for a range of health conditions. The implementation of screening programmes and the care for women and babies require many resources and funding for the NHS, so it is important that screening programmes represent good value for money. This means that the amount of money the NHS spends on a programme is justified by the amount of benefit that the programme gives. We wanted to see whether researchers consider all the important benefits and harms associated with screening of pregnant women and newborn babies when calculating value for money. To do this, we searched all studies available in developed countries to identify what benefits and harms they considered. We also considered the views of parents and healthcare professionals on the benefits and harms screening that creates for families and wider society. We found that the identification of benefits and harms of screening is complex because screening results affect a range of people (mother–baby, parents, extended family and wider society). Researchers calculating the value for money of screening programmes have, to date, concentrated on a narrow range of benefits and harms and ignored many factors that are important to people affected by screening results. From our discussions with parents and healthcare professionals, we found that wider impacts on families are an important consideration. Only one study we looked at considered wider impacts on families. Our work also found that parent’s ability to recognise, absorb and apply new information to understand their child’s screening results or condition is important. Healthcare professionals involve in screening should consider this when supporting families of children with a condition. We have created a list for researchers to identify the benefits and harms that are important to include in future studies. We have also identified different ways researchers can value these benefits and harms, so they are incorporated into their studies in a meaningful way.

OBJECTIVE: Prior work identified 6 key value elements (attributes of treatment and desired outcomes) for individuals living with major depressive disorder (MDD) in managing their condition: mode of treatment, time to treatment helpfulness, MDD relief, quality of work, interaction with others, and affordability. The objective of our study was to identify whether previous cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) for MDD treatment addressed any of these value elements. A secondary objective was to identify whether any study engaged patients, family members, and caregivers in the model development process.
METHODS: We conducted a systematic literature review to identify published model-based CEAs. We compared the elements of the published studies with the MDD patient value elements elicited in prior work to identify gaps and areas for future research.
RESULTS: Of 86 published CEAs, we found that 7 included patient out-of-pocket costs, and 32 included measures of productivity, which were both priorities for individuals with MDD. We found that only 2 studies elicited measures from patients for their model, and 2 studies engaged patients in the modeling process.
CONCLUSIONS: Published CEA models for MDD treatment do not regularly include value elements that are a priority for this patient population nor do they include patients in their modeling process. Flexible models that can accommodate elements consistent with patient experience are needed, and a multistakeholder engagement approach would help accomplish this.