Diagnostics and treatments of COVID-19 : two-year update to a living systematic review of economic evaluations
Copyright © 2023 Elvidge, Hopkin, Narayanan, Nicholls and Dawoud..
Objectives: As the initial crisis of the COVID-19 pandemic recedes, healthcare decision makers are likely to want to make rational evidence-guided choices between the many interventions now available. We sought to update a systematic review to provide an up-to-date summary of the cost-effectiveness evidence regarding tests for SARS-CoV-2 and treatments for COVID-19. Methods: Key databases, including MEDLINE, EconLit and Embase, were searched on 3 July 2023, 2 years on from the first iteration of this review in July 2021. We also examined health technology assessment (HTA) reports and the citations of included studies and reviews. Peer-reviewed studies reporting full health economic evaluations of tests or treatments in English were included. Studies were quality assessed using an established checklist, and those with very serious limitations were excluded. Data from included studies were extracted into predefined tables. Results: The database search identified 8,287 unique records, of which 54 full texts were reviewed, 28 proceeded for quality assessment, and 15 were included. Three further studies were included through HTA sources and citation checking. Of the 18 studies ultimately included, 17 evaluated treatments including corticosteroids, antivirals and immunotherapies. In most studies, the comparator was standard care. Two studies in lower-income settings evaluated the cost effectiveness of rapid antigen tests and critical care provision. There were 17 modelling analyses and 1 trial-based evaluation. Conclusion: A large number of economic evaluations of interventions for COVID-19 have been published since July 2021. Their findings can help decision makers to prioritise between competing interventions, such as the repurposed antivirals and immunotherapies now available to treat COVID-19. However, some evidence gaps remain present, including head-to-head analyses, disease-specific utility values, and consideration of different disease variants. Systematic Review Registration: [https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021272219], identifier [PROSPERO 2021 CRD42021272219].
| Medienart: |
E-Artikel |
|---|
| Erscheinungsjahr: |
2023 |
|---|---|
| Erschienen: |
2023 |
| Enthalten in: |
Zur Gesamtaufnahme - volume:14 |
|---|---|
| Enthalten in: |
Frontiers in pharmacology - 14(2023) vom: 27., Seite 1291164 |
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
|---|
| Beteiligte Personen: |
Elvidge, Jamie [VerfasserIn] |
|---|
| Links: |
|---|
| Themen: |
COVID-19 |
|---|
| Anmerkungen: |
Date Revised 02.12.2023 published: Electronic-eCollection Citation Status PubMed-not-MEDLINE |
|---|
| doi: |
10.3389/fphar.2023.1291164 |
|---|
| funding: |
|
|---|---|
| Förderinstitution / Projekttitel: |
|
| PPN (Katalog-ID): |
NLM365261521 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000naa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | NLM365261521 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20231226101306.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 231226s2023 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.3389/fphar.2023.1291164 |2 doi | |
| 028 | 5 | 2 | |a pubmed24n1217.xml |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)NLM365261521 | ||
| 035 | |a (NLM)38035028 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Elvidge, Jamie |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Diagnostics and treatments of COVID-19 |b two-year update to a living systematic review of economic evaluations |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2023 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a ƒaComputermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a ƒa Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 500 | |a Date Revised 02.12.2023 | ||
| 500 | |a published: Electronic-eCollection | ||
| 500 | |a Citation Status PubMed-not-MEDLINE | ||
| 520 | |a Copyright © 2023 Elvidge, Hopkin, Narayanan, Nicholls and Dawoud. | ||
| 520 | |a Objectives: As the initial crisis of the COVID-19 pandemic recedes, healthcare decision makers are likely to want to make rational evidence-guided choices between the many interventions now available. We sought to update a systematic review to provide an up-to-date summary of the cost-effectiveness evidence regarding tests for SARS-CoV-2 and treatments for COVID-19. Methods: Key databases, including MEDLINE, EconLit and Embase, were searched on 3 July 2023, 2 years on from the first iteration of this review in July 2021. We also examined health technology assessment (HTA) reports and the citations of included studies and reviews. Peer-reviewed studies reporting full health economic evaluations of tests or treatments in English were included. Studies were quality assessed using an established checklist, and those with very serious limitations were excluded. Data from included studies were extracted into predefined tables. Results: The database search identified 8,287 unique records, of which 54 full texts were reviewed, 28 proceeded for quality assessment, and 15 were included. Three further studies were included through HTA sources and citation checking. Of the 18 studies ultimately included, 17 evaluated treatments including corticosteroids, antivirals and immunotherapies. In most studies, the comparator was standard care. Two studies in lower-income settings evaluated the cost effectiveness of rapid antigen tests and critical care provision. There were 17 modelling analyses and 1 trial-based evaluation. Conclusion: A large number of economic evaluations of interventions for COVID-19 have been published since July 2021. Their findings can help decision makers to prioritise between competing interventions, such as the repurposed antivirals and immunotherapies now available to treat COVID-19. However, some evidence gaps remain present, including head-to-head analyses, disease-specific utility values, and consideration of different disease variants. Systematic Review Registration: [https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021272219], identifier [PROSPERO 2021 CRD42021272219] | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Systematic Review | |
| 650 | 4 | |a COVID-19 | |
| 650 | 4 | |a cost-effectiveness | |
| 650 | 4 | |a cost-utility analysis | |
| 650 | 4 | |a diagnostics | |
| 650 | 4 | |a economic evaluation | |
| 650 | 4 | |a health technology assessment | |
| 650 | 4 | |a living review | |
| 650 | 4 | |a pharmacological | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Hopkin, Gareth |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Narayanan, Nithin |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Nicholls, David |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Dawoud, Dalia |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t Frontiers in pharmacology |d 2010 |g 14(2023) vom: 27., Seite 1291164 |w (DE-627)NLM208568891 |x 1663-9812 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:14 |g year:2023 |g day:27 |g pages:1291164 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2023.1291164 |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_NLM | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 14 |j 2023 |b 27 |h 1291164 | ||