Big Data and Real-World Data based Cost-Effectiveness Studies and Decision-making Models: A Systematic Review and Analysis

A scoping review on quality assessment tools used in systematic reviews and meta-analysis of real-world studies

Risk of bias tools is important in identifying inherent methodical flaws and for generating evidence in studies involving systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs), hence the need for sensitive and study-specific tools. This study aimed to review quality assessment (QA) tools used in SRs and MAs involving real-world data. Electronic databases involving PubMed, Allied and Complementary Medicine Database, Cumulated Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and MEDLINE were searched for SRs and MAs involving real-world data. Search was delimited to articles published in English, and between inception to 20 of November 2022 following the SRs and MAs extension for scoping checklist. Sixteen articles on real-world data published between 2016 and 2021 that reported their methodological quality met the inclusion criteria. Seven of these articles were observational studies, while the others were of interventional type. Overall, 16 QA tools were identified. Except one, all the QA tools employed in SRs and MAs involving real-world data are generic, and only three of these were validated. Generic QA tools are mostly used for real-world data SRs and MAs, while no validated and reliable specific tool currently exist. Thus, there is need for a standardized and specific QA tool of SRs and MAs for real-world data.

Using real world evidence to generate cost-effectiveness analysis of fibrinolytic therapy in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction in Thailand

BACKGROUND

Due to limited access to primary percutaneous coronary intervention for the management of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) in low-to-middle-income countries (LMICs), fibrinolysis serves as a vital alternative reperfusion therapy. Among fibrinolytic agents, the cost-effectiveness of tenecteplase (TNK) in LMICs as compared to streptokinase (SK) for STEMI management remains unknown.

METHODS

Cost-effectiveness was analyzed using a hybrid model consisting of short-term analysis (30-days decision tree model) and long-term analysis (Markov model). Both health care provider and societal perspectives over a lifetime horizon with 3% discount rate were considered. Input parameters were obtained from Thailand's national health database, a network meta-analysis and literature review. Outcome measure was an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) determined by an incremental cost per quality-adjusted life years (QALY) gain. An ICER of less than $5,590 per QALY gain is considered cost-effective. Series of sensitivity analyses were also performed.

FINDINGS

From the societal perspective, TNK increases cost by $827 and increases QALY by 0·173. Thus, the ICER is $4,777 per QALY gained. Similarly, the ICER from health care provider perspective is $4,664 per QALY gained. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, using 5,590 USD per QALY as threshold, the probability of TNK being cost-effective was 83% from both perspectives. The most influential parameters were risk ratio of death for treatment with TNK compared to SK and drug cost of TNK.

INTERPRETATION

In a resource-limited country like Thailand, tenecteplase is a cost-effective fibrinolytic drug for treatment of STEMI compared to streptokinase.

FUNDING

None.