Incremental net benefit of cholecystectomy compared with alternative treatments in people with gallstones or cholecystitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of cost–utility studies

Introduction

Cholecystectomy is a standard treatment in the management of symptomatic gallstone disease. Current literature has contradicting views on the cost-effectiveness of different cholecystectomy treatments. We have conducted a systematic reappraisal of literature concerning the cost-effectiveness of cholecystectomy in management of gallstone disease.

Methods

We systematically searched for economic evaluation studies from PubMed, Embase and Scopus for eligible studies from inception up to July 2020. We pooled the incremental net benefit (INB) with a 95% CI using a random-effects model. We assessed the heterogeneity using the Cochrane-Q test, I2 statistic. We have used the modified economic evaluation bias (ECOBIAS) checklist for quality assessment of the selected studies. We assessed the possibility of publication bias using a funnel plot and Egger’s test.

Results

We have selected 28 studies for systematic review from a search that retrieved 8710 studies. Among them, seven studies were eligible for meta-analysis, all from high-income countries (HIC). Studies mainly reported comparisons between surgical treatments, but non-surgical gallstone disease management studies were limited. The early laparoscopic cholecystectomy (ELC) was significantly more cost-effective compared with the delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy (DLC) with an INB of US$1221 (US$187 to US$2255) but with high heterogeneity (I2=73.32%). The subgroup and sensitivity analysis also supported that ELC is the most cost-effective option for managing gallstone disease or cholecystitis.

Conclusion

ELC is more cost-effective than DLC in the treatment of gallstone disease or cholecystitis in HICs. There was insufficient literature on comparison with other treatment options, such as conservative management and limited evidence from other economies.

PROSPERO registration number

CRD42020194052.

Comparison of the Cost-utility Analysis of Electroacupuncture and Nonsteroidal Antiinflammatory Drugs in the Treatment of Chronic Low Back Pain

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE

Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is among the most common and important reasons for visiting a spine surgeon by patients; it is the second cause of visiting a doctor. Low back pain can cause considerable suffering and is a major financial burden in the society. There are many different methods available for the treatment of CLBP. This study aimed to compare the cost-utility of electroacupuncture (EA) and nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), as two common treatment methods for patients with CLBP.

METHODS

This study was conducted on 100 patients suffering from CLBP. Cases were randomly selected from patients referring to two hospitals and four acupuncture clinics in Tehran. Forty-one patients received EA, and 59 patients were prescribed NSAIDs. The EuroQol five dimensions questionnaire was used to calculate quality-adjusted life-year. For calculating the total cost of the two treatment methods, face to face interview with patients was conducted by the researchers (using specific basic literature questionnaire), neurologists, and spine surgeons. The study perspective was social (direct and indirect costs calculated).

RESULTS

The mean age for EA group was 41 ± 2.3 years, and for NSAIDs group, it was 38.0 ± 4.4 years. The average of the utility of patients under treatment by EA and NSAIDs was estimated as 0.70 and 0.627, respectively. The difference in utility between the two groups was significant (p ≤ 0.05). The total cost of EA and NSAIDs was estimated as 461.48 ± 57.8$ and 497.77 ± 85.2$ for one year (2016), respectively, which was also significant (p ≤ 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The results indicate a significant difference between EA and NSAIDs in cases of both utility and total cost. The findings demonstrate that EA is more cost-effective than NSAIDs, as therefore can be considered as an alternative treatment for CLBP, with reasonable cost-utility.