Singh K, Chandrasekaran AM, Bhaumik S, Chattopadhyay K, Gamage AU, Silva PD, Roy A, Prabhakaran D, Tandon N. Cost-effectiveness of interventions to control cardiovascular diseases and diabetes mellitus in South Asia: a systematic review.
BMJ Open 2018;
8:e017809. [PMID:
29615442 PMCID:
PMC5884366 DOI:
10.1136/bmjopen-2017-017809]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/19/2017] [Revised: 12/28/2017] [Accepted: 02/16/2018] [Indexed: 12/13/2022] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVES
More than 80% of cardiovascular diseases (CVD) and diabetes mellitus (DM) burden now lies in low and middle-income countries. Hence, there is an urgent need to identify and implement the most cost-effective interventions, particularly in the resource-constraint South Asian settings. Thus, we aimed to systematically review the cost-effectiveness of individual-level, group-level and population-level interventions to control CVD and DM in South Asia.
METHODS
We searched 14 electronic databases up to August 2016. The search strategy consisted of terms related to 'economic evaluation', 'CVD', 'DM' and 'South Asia'. Per protocol two reviewers assessed the eligibility and methodological quality of studies using standard checklists, and extracted incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of interventions.
RESULTS
Of the 2949 identified studies, 42 met full inclusion criteria. Critical appraisal of studies revealed 15 excellent, 18 good and 9 poor quality studies. Most studies were from India (n=37), followed by Bangladesh (n=3), Pakistan (n=2) and Bhutan (n=1). The economic evaluations were based on observational studies (n=9), randomised trials (n=12) and decision models (n=21). Together, these studies evaluated 301 policy or clinical interventions or combination of both. We found a large number of interventions were cost-effective aimed at primordial prevention (tobacco taxation, salt reduction legislation, food labelling and food advertising regulation), and primary and secondary prevention (multidrug therapy for CVD in high-risk group, lifestyle modification and metformin treatment for diabetes prevention, and screening for diabetes complications every 2-5 years). Significant heterogeneity in analytical framework and outcome measures used in these studies restricted meta-analysis and direct ranking of the interventions by their degree of cost-effectiveness.
CONCLUSIONS
The cost-effectiveness evidence for CVD and DM interventions in South Asia is growing, but most evidence is from India and limited to decision modelled outcomes. There is an urgent need for formal health technology assessment and policy evaluations in South Asia using local research data.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER
CRD42013006479.
Collapse