Costs of informal nursing care for patients with neurologic disorders: A systematic review

Cost-effectiveness of surgical treatment compared to medical treatment in patients with drug-refractory epilepsy: A systematic review

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Approximately 30% of epilepsy patients develop a drug-refractory epilepsy, that is, seizures cannot be controlled with antiepileptic drugs. Surgery has been evaluated as an effective but costly form of treatment. The aim of this systematic review is to synthesize the available evidence on the cost-effectiveness of surgical treatment compared to medical treatment for these patients.

METHOD

A systematic literature search was performed in MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library and the National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database until September 2022. Title, abstract and full-text screening were conducted by two researchers. Original studies published in English or German analyzing the cost-effectiveness of surgical compared to medical treatment were included. Study characteristics, effectiveness measures, costs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were extracted. The quality of studies was assessed using the Drummond checklist.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies were included. Most studies evaluated surgery as cost-effective. The ICER per patient seizure free ranged from dominant to purchasing power parity US dollars (PPP-USD) 479,275. The ICER per 1% seizure reduction ranged from PPP-USD 227 to PPP-USD 342. The ICER per year without seizures was PPP-USD 4202 and the ICER per quality-adjusted life-year ranged from dominant to PPP-USD 90,874. The studies varied greatly in their methodology and time horizon.

CONCLUSION

Surgical treatment is cost-effective compared to medical treatment, especially when a lifetime horizon is adopted. It is concluded that all disease-specific costs should be considered over a long period when assessing the cost-effectiveness of epilepsy treatment. From an economic perspective, efforts should be made to improve access to surgical treatment for patients with drug-refractory epilepsy.

Valuation of Informal Care Provided to People Living With Dementia: A Systematic Literature Review

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to identify the methods used to determine the value of informal care provided to people living with dementia and to estimate the average hourly unit cost by valuation method.

METHODS

A literature search in MEDLINE Complete, CINAHL, PsycINFO, EconLit, EMBASE and NHS Economic Evaluation Database was undertaken. Following the screening of title, abstract, and full text, characteristics of eligible studies were extracted systematically and analyzed descriptively. The corresponding hourly cost estimates were converted into 2018 US dollars based on purchasing power parities for gross domestic product.

RESULTS

A total number of 111 articles were included in this review from 3106 post-deduplication records. Three main valuation methodologies were identified: the replacement cost method (n = 50), the opportunity cost approach (n = 36), and the stated preference method based on willingness to pay (n = 3), with 16 studies using multiple methods and 6 studies not specifying the valuation method. The amount of informal care increased as the condition of dementia progressed, which was reflected in the cost of informal care. The average hourly unit cost used to value informal care was US $16.78 (SD = US $12.11). Although the unit cost was approximately US $15 per hour when using the opportunity cost method and US $14 when using the stated preference method, the highest unit cost was obtained when using the replacement cost method (US $18.37, SD = US $13.12).

CONCLUSIONS

Although costs of informal care should be considered when undertaking an economic evaluation or estimating the overall costs of dementia from a policy and priority-setting perspective, further research into applying consistent approaches to valuation is warranted.

Cost of illness in multiple sclerosis by disease characteristics - A review of reviews

Introduction: In light of the increasing number of economic burden studies and heterogeneity in methodology and reporting standards, there is a need for robust evidence synthesis on an umbrella review level.Areas covered: We performed the first review of reviews of cost-of-illness studies in multiple sclerosis. Focusing on disaggregated costs by disease characteristics (disability level, relapse, disease course), we also characterized the underlying methodological evidence base of individual (primary) studies.Expert Commentary: We identified 17 reviews encompassing 111 unique primary studies, and a high degree of overlap across reviews. Costs were substantial, rising with disability level, relapse episodes, and disease progression. Disability was the key cost driver. Compared to mild disability, total costs for moderate disability were 1.4-2.3-fold higher and 1.8-2.9-fold higher for severe disability. With escalating disability, the share of costs outside the health system (indirect costs, informal care) increasingly outweighed the share of direct medical costs. Of all 111 primary studies, 72% gathered resource use/loss data by patient self-report. Associated costs were mostly reported by disability level (75%), followed by relapse (48%) and disease course (21%). In conclusion, although heterogeneity can make in-depth comparisons of costs across studies impossible, important patterns are broadly apparent.

The effect of a telerehabilitation virtual reality intervention on functional upper limb activities in people with multiple sclerosis: a study protocol for the TEAMS pilot randomized controlled trial

Background

Approximately 60% of people with multiple sclerosis (PwMS) suffer from upper limb dysfunction. Our primary goal is to implement a single-blind, randomized control trial (RCT) designed to compare the effectiveness of an 8-week home-based telerehab virtual reality (VR) program with conventional therapy in PwMS with manual dexterity difficulties. Secondary aims include (a) evaluating the impact of the programs on quality of life after the intervention and a follow-up 1 month later and (b) evaluating the impact of the programs on adherence and satisfaction.

Methods

Twenty-four PwMS will be recruited to the study which will be conducted at two established MS centers: (1) The Regional Center for Diagnosis and Treatment of Multiple Sclerosis, Binaghi Hospital, Cagliari, Italy, and (2) The Multiple Sclerosis Center, Sheba Medical Center, Tel-Hashomer, Israel. Participants will complete a total of three assessments focusing on upper limb functions. Both groups will receive 16 training sessions focusing on functional upper limb activities. The home-based telerehab VR intervention will comprise a custom-made software program running on a private computer or laptop. PwMS will perform several activities of daily living (ADL) functions associated with self-care, dressing, and meal preparation. Conventional therapy will focus on task-related upper-limb treatments while in a sitting position, indicative of the standard care in MS. Following 8 weeks of training, participants will complete a further outcome assessment. The same tests will be conducted 1 month (as a follow-up) after completion of the intervention.

Discussion

The outcomes of this study have tremendous potential to improve the quality of evidence and informed decisions of functional upper limb activities in PwMS. If comparable results are found between the treatments in improving upper limb outcomes, this would suggest that PwMS can choose the program that best meets their personal needs, e.g., financial concerns, transportation, or accessibility issues. Secondly, this information can be used by healthcare providers and medical professionals in developing upper limb exercise programs that will most likely succeed in PwMS.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04032431. Registered on 19 July 2019.

Quantifying Family Spillover Effects in Economic Evaluations: Measurement and Valuation of Informal Care Time

Spillover effects on the welfare of family members may refer to caregiver health effects, informal care time costs, or both. This review focuses on methods that have been used to measure and value informal care time and makes suggestions for their appropriate use in cost-of-illness and cost-effectiveness analyses. It highlights the importance of methods to value informal care time that are independent of caregiver health effects in order to minimize double counting of spillover effects. Although the concept of including caregiver time costs in economic evaluations is not new, relatively few societal perspective cost-effectiveness analyses have included informal care, with the exception of dementia. This is due in part to challenges in measuring and valuing time costs. Analysts can collect information on time spent in informal care or can assess its impact in displacing other time use, notably time in paid employment. A key challenge is to ensure appropriate comparison groups that do not require informal care to be able to correctly estimate attributable informal care time or foregone market work. To value informal care time, analysts can use estimates of hourly earnings in either opportunity cost or replacement cost approaches. Researchers have used widely varying estimates of hourly earnings. Alternatively, stated-preference methods (i.e. contingent valuation, conjoint analysis) can be used to value the effect of informal care on utility, but this can entail double counting with health effects. Lack of consensus and standardization of methods makes it difficult to compare estimates of informal care costs.