1
|
Quaife M, Medley GF, Jit M, Drake T, Asaria M, van Baal P, Baltussen R, Bollinger L, Bozzani F, Brady O, Broekhuizen H, Chalkidou K, Chi YL, Dowdy DW, Griffin S, Haghparast-Bidgoli H, Hallett T, Hauck K, Hollingsworth TD, McQuaid CF, Menzies NA, Merritt MW, Mirelman A, Morton A, Ruiz FJ, Siapka M, Skordis J, Tediosi F, Walker P, White RG, Winskill P, Vassall A, Gomez GB. Considering equity in priority setting using transmission models: Recommendations and data needs. Epidemics 2022; 41:100648. [PMID: 36343495 PMCID: PMC9623400 DOI: 10.1016/j.epidem.2022.100648] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/17/2021] [Revised: 09/20/2022] [Accepted: 10/21/2022] [Indexed: 11/06/2022] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVES Disease transmission models are used in impact assessment and economic evaluations of infectious disease prevention and treatment strategies, prominently so in the COVID-19 response. These models rarely consider dimensions of equity relating to the differential health burden between individuals and groups. We describe concepts and approaches which are useful when considering equity in the priority setting process, and outline the technical choices concerning model structure, outputs, and data requirements needed to use transmission models in analyses of health equity. METHODS We reviewed the literature on equity concepts and approaches to their application in economic evaluation and undertook a technical consultation on how equity can be incorporated in priority setting for infectious disease control. The technical consultation brought together health economists with an interest in equity-informative economic evaluation, ethicists specialising in public health, mathematical modellers from various disease backgrounds, and representatives of global health funding and technical assistance organisations, to formulate key areas of consensus and recommendations. RESULTS We provide a series of recommendations for applying the Reference Case for Economic Evaluation in Global Health to infectious disease interventions, comprising guidance on 1) the specification of equity concepts; 2) choice of evaluation framework; 3) model structure; and 4) data needs. We present available conceptual and analytical choices, for example how correlation between different equity- and disease-relevant strata should be considered dependent on available data, and outline how assumptions and data limitations can be reported transparently by noting key factors for consideration. CONCLUSIONS Current developments in economic evaluations in global health provide a wide range of methodologies to incorporate equity into economic evaluations. Those employing infectious disease models need to use these frameworks more in priority setting to accurately represent health inequities. We provide guidance on the technical approaches to support this goal and ultimately, to achieve more equitable health policies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- M. Quaife
- Department of Global Health and Development, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, UK,Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, UK
| | - GF Medley
- Department of Global Health and Development, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, UK
| | - M. Jit
- Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, UK
| | - T. Drake
- Center for Global Development in Europe (CGD Europe), UK
| | - M. Asaria
- LSE Health, London School of Economics, UK
| | - P. van Baal
- Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - R. Baltussen
- Nijmegen International Center for Health Systems Research and Education, Radboudmc, the Netherlands
| | | | - F. Bozzani
- Department of Global Health and Development, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, UK
| | - O. Brady
- Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, UK
| | - H. Broekhuizen
- Centre for Space, Place, and Society, Wageningen University and Research, Netherlands
| | - K. Chalkidou
- International Decision Support Initiative, Imperial College London, UK
| | - Y.-L. Chi
- International Decision Support Initiative, Imperial College London, UK
| | - DW Dowdy
- Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, USA
| | - S. Griffin
- Centre for Health Economics, University of York, UK
| | - H. Haghparast-Bidgoli
- Institute for Global Health, Centre for Global Health Economics, University College London, UK
| | - T. Hallett
- Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, Imperial College London, UK
| | - K. Hauck
- Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, Imperial College London, UK
| | - TD Hollingsworth
- Big Data Institute, Li Ka Shing Centre for Health Information and Discovery, University of Oxford, UK
| | - CF McQuaid
- Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, UK
| | - NA Menzies
- Department of Global Health and Population, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, USA
| | - MW Merritt
- Johns Hopkins Berman Institute of Bioethics and Department of International Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, United States
| | - A. Mirelman
- Centre for Health Economics, University of York, UK
| | - A. Morton
- Department of Management Science, University of Strathclyde, UK
| | - FJ Ruiz
- International Decision Support Initiative, Imperial College London, UK
| | - M. Siapka
- Department of Global Health and Development, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, UK,Impact Elipsis, Greece
| | - J. Skordis
- Institute for Global Health, Centre for Global Health Economics, University College London, UK
| | - F. Tediosi
- Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute and Universität Basel, Switzerland
| | - P. Walker
- Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, Imperial College London, UK
| | - RG White
- Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, UK
| | - P. Winskill
- Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, Imperial College London, UK
| | - A. Vassall
- Department of Global Health and Development, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, UK,Correspondence to: London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, 15 – 17 Tavistock Place, London WC1H 9SH, UK
| | - GB Gomez
- Department of Global Health and Development, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, UK
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Downey L, Dabak S, Eames J, Teerawattananon Y, De Francesco M, Prinja S, Guinness L, Bhargava B, Rajsekar K, Asaria M, Rao N, Selvaraju V, Mehndiratta A, Culyer A, Chalkidou K, Cluzeau F. Building Capacity for Evidence-Informed Priority Setting in the Indian Health System: An International Collaborative Experience. Health Policy Open 2020; 1:100004. [PMID: 33392500 PMCID: PMC7772949 DOI: 10.1016/j.hpopen.2020.100004] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/10/2019] [Revised: 12/09/2019] [Accepted: 02/17/2020] [Indexed: 11/16/2022] Open
Abstract
India's rapid economic growth has been accompanied by slower improvements in population health. Given the need to reconcile the ambitious goal of achieving Universal Coverage with limited resources, a robust priority-setting mechanism is required to ensure that the right trade-offs are made and the impact on health is maximised. Health Technology Assessment (HTA) is endorsed by the World Health Assembly as the gold standard approach to synthesizing evidence systematically for evidence-informed priority setting (EIPS). India is formally committed to institutionalising HTA as an integral component of the EIPS process. The effective conduct and uptake of HTA depends on a well-functioning ecosystem of stakeholders adept at commissioning and generating policy-relevant HTA research, developing and utilising rigorous technical, transparent, and inclusive methods and processes, and a strong multisectoral and transnational appetite for the use of evidence to inform policy. These all require myriad complex and complementary capacities to be built at each level of the health system . In this paper we describe how a framework for targeted and locally-tailored capacity building for EIPS, and specifically HTA, was collaboratively developed and implemented by an international network of priority-setting expertise, and the Government of India.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- L.E. Downey
- Global Health and Development, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
- Corresponding author at: Imperial College London, St Mary’s Hospital, Praed Street, London W2 1NY, United Kingdom.
| | - S. Dabak
- Health Intervention Technology Assessment Program (HITAP), Bangkok, Thailand
| | - J. Eames
- Health Intervention Technology Assessment Program (HITAP), Bangkok, Thailand
| | - Y. Teerawattananon
- Health Intervention Technology Assessment Program (HITAP), Bangkok, Thailand
| | - M. De Francesco
- Global Health and Development, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
| | - S. Prinja
- School of Public Health, Post Graduate Medical Institute of Health Education and Research (PGIMER) Chandigarh, India
| | - L. Guinness
- Global Health and Development, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
| | - B. Bhargava
- Department of Health Research, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, New Delhi, India
| | - K. Rajsekar
- Department of Health Research, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, New Delhi, India
| | - M. Asaria
- London School of Economics and Political Science, London, United Kingdom
| | - N.V. Rao
- Global Health and Development, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
| | - V. Selvaraju
- Global Health and Development, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
| | - A. Mehndiratta
- Global Health and Development, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
| | - A. Culyer
- Centre for Health Economics, University of York, York, United Kingdom
| | - K. Chalkidou
- Global Health and Development, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
- Centre for Global Development Europe, London, United Kingdom
| | - F.A. Cluzeau
- Global Health and Development, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Jayatunga W, Asaria M, Belloni A, George A, Bourne T, Sadique Z. Social gradients in health and social care costs: Analysis of linked electronic health records in Kent, UK. Public Health 2019; 169:188-194. [PMID: 30876723 DOI: 10.1016/j.puhe.2019.02.007] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/16/2018] [Revised: 10/08/2018] [Accepted: 02/04/2019] [Indexed: 11/17/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES Research into the socio-economic patterning of health and social care costs in the UK has so far been limited to examining only particular aspects of healthcare. In this study, we explore the social gradients in overall healthcare and social care costs, as well as in the disaggregated costs by cost category. STUDY DESIGN We calculated the social gradient in health and social care costs by cost category using a linked electronic health record data set for Kent, a county in South East England. We performed a cross-sectional analysis on a sample of 323,401 residents in Kent older than 55 years to assess the impact of neighbourhood deprivation on mean annual per capita costs in 2016/17. METHODS Patient-level costs were estimated from activity data for the financial year 2016/17 and were extracted alongside key patient characteristics. Mean costs were calculated for each area deprivation quintile based on the index of multiple deprivation of the neighbourhood (lower super output area) in which the patient lived. Cost subcategories were analysed across primary care, secondary care, social care, community care and mental health. RESULTS The mean annual per capita cost increased with deprivation across each deprivation quintile, with a cost of £1205 in the most affluent quintile, compared with £1623 in the most deprived quintile, a 35% cost increase. Social gradients were found across all cost subcategories. CONCLUSIONS Health inequalities in the population older than 55 years in Kent are associated with health and social care costs of £109m, equivalent to 15% of the estimated total expenditure in this age group. Such significant costs suggest that appropriate interventions to reduce socio-economic inequalities have the potential to substantially improve population health and, depending on how much investment they require, may even result in cost savings.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- W Jayatunga
- London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine Keppel St, Bloomsbury, London, UK.
| | - M Asaria
- Centre for Health Economics, University of York, Heslington, York, UK
| | - A Belloni
- Public Health England, Wellington House, 133-155 Waterloo Road, London, UK
| | - A George
- Kent County Council, Sessions House, County Hall, Maidstone, Kent, UK
| | - T Bourne
- Kent County Council, Sessions House, County Hall, Maidstone, Kent, UK
| | - Z Sadique
- London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine Keppel St, Bloomsbury, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Cookson R, Asaria M, Ali S, Shaw R, Doran T, Goldblatt P. Health equity monitoring for healthcare quality assurance. Soc Sci Med 2018; 198:148-156. [DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2018.01.004] [Citation(s) in RCA: 23] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/17/2017] [Revised: 12/01/2017] [Accepted: 01/04/2018] [Indexed: 11/25/2022]
|
5
|
Asaria M, Dhami S, van Ree R, Gerth van Wijk R, Muraro A, Roberts G, Sheikh A. Health economic analysis of allergen immunotherapy for the management of allergic rhinitis, asthma, food allergy and venom allergy: A systematic overview. Allergy 2018; 73:269-283. [PMID: 28718981 DOI: 10.1111/all.13254] [Citation(s) in RCA: 45] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 07/14/2017] [Indexed: 01/22/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) is developing guidelines for allergen immunotherapy (AIT) for the management of allergic rhinitis, allergic asthma, IgE-mediated food allergy and venom allergy. To inform the development of clinical recommendations, we undertook systematic reviews to critically assess evidence on the effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of AIT for these conditions. This study focusses on synthesizing data and gaps in the evidence on the cost-effectiveness of AIT for these conditions. METHODS We produced summaries of evidence in each domain, and then, synthesized findings on health economic data identified from four recent systematic reviews on allergic rhinitis, asthma, food allergy and venom allergy, respectively. The quality of these studies was independently assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tool for health economic evaluations. RESULTS Twenty-three studies satisfied our inclusion criteria. Of these, 19 studies investigated the cost-effectiveness of AIT in allergic rhinitis, of which seven were based on data from randomized controlled trials with economic evaluations conducted from a health system perspective. This body of evidence suggested that sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) and subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) would be considered cost-effective using the (English) National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) cost-effectiveness threshold of £20 000/quality-adjusted life year (QALY). However, the quality of the studies and the general lack of attention to characterizing uncertainty and handling missing data should be taken into account when interpreting these results. For asthma, there were three eligible studies, all of which had significant methodological limitations; these suggested that SLIT, when used in patients with both asthma and allergic rhinitis, may be cost-effective with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £10 726 per QALY. We found one economic modelling study for venom allergy which, despite being based largely on expert opinion and plausible assumptions, suggested that AIT for bee and wasp venom allergy is only likely to be cost-effective for very high-risk groups who may be exposed to multiple exposures to venom/year (eg bee keepers). We found no eligible studies investigating the cost-effectiveness of AIT for food allergy. CONCLUSIONS Overall, the evidence to support the cost-effectiveness of AIT is limited and of low methodological quality, but suggests that AIT may be cost-effective for people with allergic rhinitis with or without asthma and in high-risk subgroups for venom allergy. We were unable to draw any conclusions on the cost-effectiveness of AIT for food allergy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- M. Asaria
- Centre for Health Economics; University of York; York UK
| | - S. Dhami
- Evidence-Based Health Care Ltd; Edinburgh UK
| | - R. van Ree
- Departments of Experimental Immunology and of Otorhinolaryngology; Academic Medical Center; University of Amsterdam; Amsterdam The Netherlands
| | - R. Gerth van Wijk
- Section of Allergology; Department of Internal Medicine; Erasmus MC; Rotterdam The Netherlands
| | - A. Muraro
- Food Allergy Referral Centre Veneto Region; Department of Women and Child Health; Padua General University Hospital; Padua Italy
| | - G. Roberts
- The David Hide Asthma and Allergy Research Centre; St Mary's Hospital, Newport Isle of Wight; NIHR Southampton Biomedical Research Centre; University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust; Southampton UK
- University of Southampton; Southampton UK
| | - A. Sheikh
- Asthma UK; Centre for Applied Research; Usher Institute of Population Health Sciences and Informatics; The University of Edinburgh; Edinburgh UK
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Dhami S, Kakourou A, Asamoah F, Agache I, Lau S, Jutel M, Muraro A, Roberts G, Akdis CA, Bonini M, Cavkaytar O, Flood B, Gajdanowicz P, Izuhara K, Kalayci Ö, Mosges R, Palomares O, Pfaar O, Smolinska S, Sokolowska M, Asaria M, Netuveli G, Zaman H, Akhlaq A, Sheikh A. Allergen immunotherapy for allergic asthma: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Allergy 2017; 72:1825-1848. [PMID: 28543086 DOI: 10.1111/all.13208] [Citation(s) in RCA: 189] [Impact Index Per Article: 27.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 05/15/2017] [Indexed: 02/05/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND To inform the development of the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology's (EAACI) Guidelines on Allergen Immunotherapy (AIT) for allergic asthma, we assessed the evidence on the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and safety of AIT. METHODS We performed a systematic review, which involved searching nine databases. Studies were screened against predefined eligibility criteria and critically appraised using established instruments. Data were synthesized using random-effects meta-analyses. RESULTS 98 studies satisfied the inclusion criteria. Short-term symptom scores were reduced with a standardized mean difference (SMD) of -1.11 (95% CI -1.66, -0.56). This was robust to a prespecified sensitivity analyses, but there was evidence suggestive of publication bias. Short-term medication scores were reduced SMD -1.21 (95% CI -1.87, -0.54), again with evidence of potential publication bias. There was no reduction in short-term combined medication and symptom scores SMD 0.17 (95% CI -0.23, 0.58), but one study showed a beneficial long-term effect. For secondary outcomes, subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) improved quality of life and decreased allergen-specific airway hyperreactivity (AHR), but this was not the case for sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT). There were no consistent effects on asthma control, exacerbations, lung function, and nonspecific AHR. AIT resulted in a modest increased risk of adverse events (AEs). Although relatively uncommon, systemic AEs were more frequent with SCIT; however no fatalities were reported. The limited evidence on cost-effectiveness was mainly available for sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) and this suggested that SLIT is likely to be cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS AIT can achieve substantial reductions in short-term symptom and medication scores in allergic asthma. It was however associated with a modest increased risk of systemic and local AEs. More data are needed in relation to secondary outcomes, longer-term effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- S. Dhami
- Evidence-Based Health Care Ltd; Edinburgh UK
| | - A. Kakourou
- Department of Hygiene and Epidemiology; University of Ioannina School of Medicine; Ioannina Greece
| | - F. Asamoah
- Centre for Environmental and Preventive Medicine; Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry; Queen Mary University of London; London UK
| | - I. Agache
- Faculty of Medicine; Department of Allergy and Clinical Immunology; Transylvania University Brasov; Brasov Romania
| | - S. Lau
- Department of Pediatric Pneumology and Immunology; Charité Universitätsmedizin; Berlin Germany
| | - M. Jutel
- Wroclaw Medical University; Wroclaw Poland
- ALL-MED Medical Research Institute; Wroclaw Poland
| | - A. Muraro
- Food Allergy Referral Centre Veneto Region; University Hospital of Padua; Padua Italy
| | - G. Roberts
- The David Hide Asthma and Allergy Research Centre; St Mary's Hospital; Newport UK
- NIHR Biomedical Research Centre; University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust; Southampton UK
- Faculty of Medicine; University of Southampton; Southampton UK
| | - C. A. Akdis
- Swiss Institute for Allergy and Asthma Research; Christine Kühne-Center for Allergy Research and Education (CK-CARE); Davos Switzerland
| | - M. Bonini
- National Heart and Lung Institute; Imperial College London; London UK
| | - O. Cavkaytar
- Department of Allergy and Clinical Immunology; Sami Ulus Women's & Children's Diseases Training and Research Hospital; Ankara Turkey
- Department of Pediatric Allergy and Immunology; Ulus Women's & Children's Diseases Training and Research Hospital; Ankara Turkey
| | - B. Flood
- European Federation of Allergy and Airways Diseases Patients Association; Brussels Belgium
| | | | | | | | - R. Mosges
- Institute of Medical Statistics, Informatics and Epidemiology (IMSIE); University of Cologne; Köln Germany
| | - O. Palomares
- Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology; Complutense University of Madrid; Madrid Spain
| | - O. Pfaar
- Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery; Universitätsmedizin Mannheim; Medical Faculty Mannheim; Heidelberg University; Mannheim Germany
- Center for Rhinology and Allergology; Wiesbaden Germany
| | - S. Smolinska
- Wroclaw Medical University; Wroclaw Poland
- ALL-MED Medical Research Institute; Wroclaw Poland
| | - M. Sokolowska
- Swiss Institute for Allergy and Asthma Research; Christine Kühne-Center for Allergy Research and Education (CK-CARE); Davos Switzerland
| | - M. Asaria
- Centre for Health Economics; University of York; York UK
| | - G. Netuveli
- Institute for Health and Human Development; University of East London; London UK
| | - H. Zaman
- Bradford School of Pharmacy; Bradford UK
| | - A. Akhlaq
- Health and Hospital Management; Institute of Business Management; Karachi Pakistan
| | - A. Sheikh
- Asthma UK Centre for Applied Research; The University of Edinburgh; Edinburgh UK
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Dhami S, Nurmatov U, Arasi S, Khan T, Asaria M, Zaman H, Agarwal A, Netuveli G, Roberts G, Pfaar O, Muraro A, Ansotegui IJ, Calderon M, Cingi C, Durham S, Wijk RG, Halken S, Hamelmann E, Hellings P, Jacobsen L, Knol E, Larenas‐Linnemann D, Lin S, Maggina P, Mösges R, Oude Elberink H, Pajno G, Panwankar R, Pastorello E, Penagos M, Pitsios C, Rotiroti G, Timmermans F, Tsilochristou O, Varga E, Schmidt‐Weber C, Wilkinson J, Williams A, Worm M, Zhang L, Sheikh A. Allergen immunotherapy for allergic rhinoconjunctivitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Allergy 2017; 72:1597-1631. [PMID: 28493631 DOI: 10.1111/all.13201] [Citation(s) in RCA: 186] [Impact Index Per Article: 26.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 05/04/2017] [Indexed: 12/18/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) is in the process of developing Guidelines on Allergen Immunotherapy (AIT) for Allergic Rhinoconjunctivitis. To inform the development of clinical recommendations, we undertook a systematic review to assess the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and safety of AIT in the management of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis. METHODS We searched nine international biomedical databases for published, in-progress, and unpublished evidence. Studies were independently screened by two reviewers against predefined eligibility criteria and critically appraised using established instruments. Our primary outcomes of interest were symptom, medication, and combined symptom and medication scores. Secondary outcomes of interest included cost-effectiveness and safety. Data were descriptively summarized and then quantitatively synthesized using random-effects meta-analyses. RESULTS We identified 5960 studies of which 160 studies satisfied our eligibility criteria. There was a substantial body of evidence demonstrating significant reductions in standardized mean differences (SMD) of symptom (SMD -0.53, 95% CI -0.63, -0.42), medication (SMD -0.37, 95% CI -0.49, -0.26), and combined symptom and medication (SMD -0.49, 95% CI -0.69, -0.30) scores while on treatment that were robust to prespecified sensitivity analyses. There was in comparison a more modest body of evidence on effectiveness post-discontinuation of AIT, suggesting a benefit in relation to symptom scores. CONCLUSIONS AIT is effective in improving symptom, medication, and combined symptom and medication scores in patients with allergic rhinoconjunctivitis while on treatment, and there is some evidence suggesting that these benefits are maintained in relation to symptom scores after discontinuation of therapy.
Collapse
|
8
|
Dhami S, Zaman H, Varga EM, Sturm GJ, Muraro A, Akdis CA, Antolín-Amérigo D, Bilò MB, Bokanovic D, Calderon MA, Cichocka-Jarosz E, Oude Elberink JNG, Gawlik R, Jakob T, Kosnik M, Lange J, Mingomataj E, Mitsias DI, Mosbech H, Ollert M, Pfaar O, Pitsios C, Pravettoni V, Roberts G, Ruëff F, Sin BA, Asaria M, Netuveli G, Sheikh A. Allergen immunotherapy for insect venom allergy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Allergy 2017; 72:342-365. [PMID: 28120424 DOI: 10.1111/all.13077] [Citation(s) in RCA: 73] [Impact Index Per Article: 10.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 10/31/2016] [Indexed: 12/01/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) is in the process of developing the EAACI Guidelines on Allergen Immunotherapy (AIT) for the management of insect venom allergy. To inform this process, we sought to assess the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and safety of AIT in the management of insect venom allergy. METHODS We undertook a systematic review, which involved searching 15 international biomedical databases for published and unpublished evidence. Studies were independently screened and critically appraised using established instruments. Data were descriptively summarized and, where possible, meta-analysed. RESULTS Our searches identified a total of 16 950 potentially eligible studies; of which, 17 satisfied our inclusion criteria. The available evidence was limited both in volume and in quality, but suggested that venom immunotherapy (VIT) could substantially reduce the risk of subsequent severe systemic sting reactions (OR = 0.08, 95% CI 0.03-0.26); meta-analysis showed that it also improved disease-specific quality of life (risk difference = 1.41, 95% CI 1.04-1.79). Adverse effects were experienced in both the build-up and maintenance phases, but most were mild with no fatalities being reported. The very limited evidence found on modelling cost-effectiveness suggested that VIT was likely to be cost-effective in those at high risk of repeated systemic sting reactions and/or impaired quality of life. CONCLUSIONS The limited available evidence suggested that VIT is effective in reducing severe subsequent systemic sting reactions and in improving disease-specific quality of life. VIT proved to be safe and no fatalities were recorded in the studies included in this review. The cost-effectiveness of VIT needs to be established.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- S. Dhami
- Evidence-Based Health Care Ltd; Edinburgh UK
| | - H. Zaman
- School of Pharmacy; University of Bradford; Bradford UK
| | - E.-M. Varga
- Department of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine; Respiratory and Allergic Disease Division; Medical University of Graz; Graz Austria
| | - G. J. Sturm
- Department of Dermatology and Venerology; Medical University of Graz; Graz Austria
- Outpatient Allergy Clinic Reumannplatz; Vienna Austria
| | - A. Muraro
- Department of Women and Child Health; Food Allergy Referral Centre Veneto Region; Padua General University Hospital; Padua Italy
| | - C. A. Akdis
- Swiss Institute of Allergy and Asthma Research (SIAF); Switzerland Servicio de Enfermedades del Sistema Inmune-Alergia; University of Zurich; Zurich Switzerland
- Departamento de Medicina y Especialidades Médicas; Hospital Universitario Príncipe de Asturias; Madrid Spain
| | | | - M. B. Bilò
- Allergy Unit; Department of Internal Medicine; University Hospital of Ancona; Ancona Italy
| | - D. Bokanovic
- Department of Dermatology and Venerology; Medical University of Graz; Graz Austria
| | - M. A. Calderon
- Section of Allergy and Clinical Immunology; Imperial College London; National Heart and Lung Institute; Royal Brompton Hospital; London UK
| | - E. Cichocka-Jarosz
- Department of Pediatrics; Jagiellonian University Medical College; Krakow Poland
| | - J. N. G. Oude Elberink
- Department of Allergology and Internal Medicine; University of Groningen; University Medical Hospital Groningen; Groningen The Netherlands
- Groningen Research Center for Asthma and COPD (GRIAC); Groningen The Netherlands
| | - R. Gawlik
- Department of Internal Medicine, Allergy and Clinical Immunology; Medical University of Silesia; Katowice Poland
| | - T. Jakob
- Department of Dermatology and Allergology; University Medical Center Gießen and Marburg (UKGM); Justus Liebig University Gießen; Gießen Germany
| | - M. Kosnik
- Medical Faculty Ljubljana; University Clinic of Respiratory and Allergic Diseases Golnik; Golnik Slovenia
| | - J. Lange
- Department of Pediatric Pneumonology and Allergy; Medical University of Warsaw; Warsaw Poland
| | - E. Mingomataj
- Department of Allergology and Clinical Immunology; Mother Theresa School of Medicine; Tirana Albania
- Department of Paraclinical Disciplines; Faculty of Technical Medical Sciences; Medicine University of Tirana; Tirana Albania
| | - D. I. Mitsias
- Department of Allergy and Clinical Immunology; 2nd Pediatric Clinic; University of Athens; Athens Greece
| | - H. Mosbech
- Allergy Clinic; Copenhagen University Hospital Gentofte; Gentofte Denmark
| | - M. Ollert
- Department of Infection and Immunity; Luxembourg Institute of Health (LIH); Strassen Luxembourg
| | - O. Pfaar
- Department of Otorhinolaryngology; Head and Neck Surgery; Universitätsmedizin Mannheim; Mannheim Germany
- Medical Faculty Mannheim; Heidelberg University; Heidelberg Germany
- Center for Rhinology Allergology; Wiesbaden Germany
| | - C. Pitsios
- Medical School; University of Cyprus; Nicosia Cyprus
| | - V. Pravettoni
- UOC Clinical Allergy and Immunology; IRCCS Foundation Ca’ Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico; Milan Italy
| | - G. Roberts
- The David Hide Asthma and Allergy Research Centre; St Mary's Hospital; Newport Isle of Wight UK
- NIHR Respiratory Biomedical Research Unit; University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust; Southampton UK
- Faculty of Medicine; University of Southampton; Southampton UK
| | - F. Ruëff
- Klinik und Poliklinik für Dermatologie und Allergologie; Klinikum der Universität München; Munich Germany
| | - B. A. Sin
- Department of Pulmonary Diseases; Division of Immunology and Allergy; Faculty of Medicine; Ankara University; Ankara Turkey
| | - M. Asaria
- Research Fellow Centre for Health Economics; University of York; UK
| | - G. Netuveli
- Institute for Health and Human Development; University of East London; London UK
| | - A. Sheikh
- Allergy and Respiratory Research Group; The University of Edinburgh; Edinburgh UK
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Sherringham J, Asaria M, Barrat H, Raine R, Cookson R. P92 Are some areas more equal than others? Socioeconomic inequality in avoidable emergency hospitalisation within English local authorities from 2004/5 to 2011/12. Br J Soc Med 2016. [DOI: 10.1136/jech-2016-208064.190] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/03/2022]
|
10
|
Cookson R, Asaria M, Ali S, Ferguson B, Fleetcroft R, Goddard M, Goldblatt P, Laudicella M, Raine R. OP44 A framework for monitoring nhs equity performance – small area analysis of national administrative data from 2004/5 to 2011/12. J Epidemiol Community Health 2015. [DOI: 10.1136/jech-2015-206256.43] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/03/2022]
|
11
|
Rodgers M, Asaria M, Walker S, McMillan D, Lucock M, Harden M, Palmer S, Eastwood A. The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of low-intensity psychological interventions for the secondary prevention of relapse after depression: a systematic review. Health Technol Assess 2012; 16:1-130. [PMID: 22642789 DOI: 10.3310/hta16280] [Citation(s) in RCA: 44] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/22/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Depression is the most common mental disorder in community settings and a major cause of disability across the world. The objective of treatment is to achieve remission or at least adequate control of depressive symptoms; however, even after successful treatment, the risk of relapse after remission is significant. Although the effectiveness of low-intensity interventions has been extensively evaluated to treat primary symptoms of psychological difficulties, there has been substantially less research examining the use of these interventions as a relapse prevention strategy. OBJECTIVE To systematically review the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of low-intensity psychological or psychosocial interventions to prevent relapse or recurrence in patients with depression. As the broader definition of 'low-intensity' psychological intervention is somewhat contested, the review was conducted in two parts: A, a systematic review of all evaluations of 'low-intensity' interventions that were delivered by para-professionals, peer supporters or psychological well-being practitioners as defined by the Improving Access to Psychological Therapies programme; and B, a scoping review of relevant evaluations of interventions involving qualified mental health professionals (e.g. psychiatrists, clinical psychologists, cognitive behavioural therapists) involving < 6 hours of contact per patient. DATA SOURCES Comprehensive literature searches were developed; electronic databases were searched from inception until September 2010 (including MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, PsycINFO, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library), internet resources were used to identify guidelines on the treatment of depression, and the bibliographies of relevant reviews, guidelines and included studies were scrutinised. REVIEW METHODS Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts; data were extracted independently by one reviewer using a standardised data extraction form and checked by another. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus, with involvement of a third reviewer when necessary. The inclusion criteria were population - adults or adolescents who had received treatment for depression; intervention - part A, low-intensity interventions, specifically any unsupported psychological/psychosocial interventions or any supported interventions that did not involve highly qualified mental health professionals, and, part B, interventions carried out by qualified mental health professionals that involved < 6 hours of contact per patient; comparator - any, including no treatment, placebo, psychological or pharmacological interventions; outcomes - relapse or recurrence, other outcomes (e.g. social function, quality of life) were recorded where reported; and study design - for clinical effectiveness, randomised, quasi-randomised and non-randomised studies with concurrent control patients. For cost-effectiveness, full economic evaluations that compared two or more treatment options and considered both costs and consequences. No studies met the main part A inclusion criteria. RESULTS For the clinical effectiveness review, 17 studies (14 completed, three ongoing), reported in 27 publications, met the part B inclusion criteria. These studies were clinically and methodologically diverse, and reported differing degrees of efficacy for the evaluated interventions. One randomised controlled trial (RCT), which evaluated a collaborative care-type programme, was potentially relevant to part A; this study reported no difference between patients receiving the intervention and those receiving usual care in terms of relapse of depression over 12 months. For the cost-effectiveness review, two studies met the criteria for part B. One of these was an economic evaluation of the RCT above, which was potentially relevant to part A. This evaluation found that the intervention may be a cost-effective use of resources when compared with usual care; however, it was unclear how valid these estimates were for the NHS. LIMITATIONS Although any definition of 'brief' is likely to be somewhat arbitrary, an inclusion threshold of 6 hours contact per patient was used to select brief high-intensity intervention studies. Most excluded studies evaluated clearly resource-intensive interventions, though occasionally, studies were excluded on the basis of having only slightly more than 6 hours contact per patient. CONCLUSIONS There is inadequate evidence to determine the clinical effectiveness or cost-effectiveness of low-intensity interventions for the prevention of relapse or recurrence of depression. A scoping review of brief high-intensity therapies indicates that some approaches have shown promise in some studies, but findings have not been consistent. Many uncertainties remain and further primary research is required. Careful consideration should be given to the scope of such research; it is important to evaluate the broader patient pathway accounting for the heterogeneous patient groups of interest. Future RCTs conducted in a UK primary care setting should include adult participants in remission or recovery from depression, and evaluate the quality of the intervention and consistency of delivery across practitioners where appropriate. The occurrence of relapse or recurrence should be measured using established methods, and functional outcomes as well as symptoms should be measured; data on quality of life using a generic instrument, such as the European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D), should be collected. FUNDING The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- M Rodgers
- Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, UK
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|