19
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

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

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          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.

          Related collections

          Most cited references64

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

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

          Systematic reviews should build on a protocol that describes the rationale, hypothesis, and planned methods of the review; few reviews report whether a protocol exists. Detailed, well-described protocols can facilitate the understanding and appraisal of the review methods, as well as the detection of modifications to methods and selective reporting in completed reviews. We describe the development of a reporting guideline, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses for Protocols 2015 (PRISMA-P 2015). PRISMA-P consists of a 17-item checklist intended to facilitate the preparation and reporting of a robust protocol for the systematic review. Funders and those commissioning reviews might consider mandating the use of the checklist to facilitate the submission of relevant protocol information in funding applications. Similarly, peer reviewers and editors can use the guidance to gauge the completeness and transparency of a systematic review protocol submitted for publication in a journal or other medium.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Thresholds for the cost–effectiveness of interventions: alternative approaches

            Abstract Many countries use the cost–effectiveness thresholds recommended by the World Health Organization’s Choosing Interventions that are Cost–Effective project (WHO-CHOICE) when evaluating health interventions. This project sets the threshold for cost–effectiveness as the cost of the intervention per disability-adjusted life-year (DALY) averted less than three times the country’s annual gross domestic product (GDP) per capita. Highly cost–effective interventions are defined as meeting a threshold per DALY averted of once the annual GDP per capita. We argue that reliance on these thresholds reduces the value of cost–effectiveness analyses and makes such analyses too blunt to be useful for most decision-making in the field of public health. Use of these thresholds has little theoretical justification, skirts the difficult but necessary ranking of the relative values of locally-applicable interventions and omits any consideration of what is truly affordable. The WHO-CHOICE thresholds set such a low bar for cost–effectiveness that very few interventions with evidence of efficacy can be ruled out. The thresholds have little value in assessing the trade-offs that decision-makers must confront. We present alternative approaches for applying cost–effectiveness criteria to choices in the allocation of health-care resources.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Markov Models in Medical Decision Making: A Practical Guide

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                akbarisari@tums.ac.ir
                Journal
                Cost Eff Resour Alloc
                Cost Eff Resour Alloc
                Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation : C/E
                BioMed Central (London )
                1478-7547
                13 January 2021
                13 January 2021
                2021
                : 19
                : 3
                Affiliations
                [1 ]GRID grid.411705.6, ISNI 0000 0001 0166 0922, Department of Health Management and Economics, School of Public Health, , Tehran University of Medical Sciences, ; 0000-0002-2043-8451 Tehran, Iran
                [2 ]GRID grid.411746.1, ISNI 0000 0004 4911 7066, Department of Health Economics, School of Health Management and Information Sciences, , Iran University of Medical Sciences, ; Tehran, Iran
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7351-9239
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8186-0800
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3190-2923
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3173-4969
                Article
                256
                10.1186/s12962-020-00256-2
                7807517
                33441153
                7205d859-a189-4b89-8f4e-c35cc18b82e2
                © The Author(s) 2021

                Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

                History
                : 11 April 2020
                : 24 November 2020
                : 11 December 2020
                Categories
                Review
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2021

                Public health
                cost utility analysis,economic evaluation,cost effectiveness analysis,iran
                Public health
                cost utility analysis, economic evaluation, cost effectiveness analysis, iran

                Comments

                Comment on this article