Cargando…

Diagnostics and treatments of COVID-19: two-year update to a living systematic review of economic evaluations

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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Elvidge, Jamie, Hopkin, Gareth, Narayanan, Nithin, Nicholls, David, Dawoud, Dalia
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10687367/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38035028
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2023.1291164
_version_ 1785151962529923072
author Elvidge, Jamie
Hopkin, Gareth
Narayanan, Nithin
Nicholls, David
Dawoud, Dalia
author_facet Elvidge, Jamie
Hopkin, Gareth
Narayanan, Nithin
Nicholls, David
Dawoud, Dalia
author_sort Elvidge, Jamie
collection PubMed
description 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].
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10687367
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-106873672023-11-30 Diagnostics and treatments of COVID-19: two-year update to a living systematic review of economic evaluations Elvidge, Jamie Hopkin, Gareth Narayanan, Nithin Nicholls, David Dawoud, Dalia Front Pharmacol Pharmacology 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]. Frontiers Media S.A. 2023-11-16 /pmc/articles/PMC10687367/ /pubmed/38035028 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2023.1291164 Text en Copyright © 2023 Elvidge, Hopkin, Narayanan, Nicholls and Dawoud. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Pharmacology
Elvidge, Jamie
Hopkin, Gareth
Narayanan, Nithin
Nicholls, David
Dawoud, Dalia
Diagnostics and treatments of COVID-19: two-year update to a living systematic review of economic evaluations
title Diagnostics and treatments of COVID-19: two-year update to a living systematic review of economic evaluations
title_full Diagnostics and treatments of COVID-19: two-year update to a living systematic review of economic evaluations
title_fullStr Diagnostics and treatments of COVID-19: two-year update to a living systematic review of economic evaluations
title_full_unstemmed Diagnostics and treatments of COVID-19: two-year update to a living systematic review of economic evaluations
title_short Diagnostics and treatments of COVID-19: two-year update to a living systematic review of economic evaluations
title_sort diagnostics and treatments of covid-19: two-year update to a living systematic review of economic evaluations
topic Pharmacology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10687367/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38035028
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2023.1291164
work_keys_str_mv AT elvidgejamie diagnosticsandtreatmentsofcovid19twoyearupdatetoalivingsystematicreviewofeconomicevaluations
AT hopkingareth diagnosticsandtreatmentsofcovid19twoyearupdatetoalivingsystematicreviewofeconomicevaluations
AT narayanannithin diagnosticsandtreatmentsofcovid19twoyearupdatetoalivingsystematicreviewofeconomicevaluations
AT nichollsdavid diagnosticsandtreatmentsofcovid19twoyearupdatetoalivingsystematicreviewofeconomicevaluations
AT dawouddalia diagnosticsandtreatmentsofcovid19twoyearupdatetoalivingsystematicreviewofeconomicevaluations