Digital Biomarker-Based Interventions: Systematic Review of Systematic Reviews

BACKGROUND

The introduction of new medical technologies such as sensors has accelerated the process of collecting patient data for relevant clinical decisions, which has led to the introduction of a new technology known as digital biomarkers.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to assess the methodological quality and quality of evidence from meta-analyses of digital biomarker-based interventions.

METHODS

This study follows the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guideline for reporting systematic reviews, including original English publications of systematic reviews reporting meta-analyses of clinical outcomes (efficacy and safety endpoints) of digital biomarker-based interventions compared with alternative interventions without digital biomarkers. Imaging or other technologies that do not measure objective physiological or behavioral data were excluded from this study. A literature search of PubMed and the Cochrane Library was conducted, limited to 2019-2020. The quality of the methodology and evidence synthesis of the meta-analyses were assessed using AMSTAR-2 (A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2) and GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations), respectively. This study was funded by the National Research, Development and Innovation Fund of Hungary.

RESULTS

A total of 25 studies with 91 reported outcomes were included in the final analysis; 1 (4%), 1 (4%), and 23 (92%) studies had high, low, and critically low methodologic quality, respectively. As many as 6 clinical outcomes (7%) had high-quality evidence and 80 outcomes (88%) had moderate-quality evidence; 5 outcomes (5%) were rated with a low level of certainty, mainly due to risk of bias (85/91, 93%), inconsistency (27/91, 30%), and imprecision (27/91, 30%). There is high-quality evidence of improvements in mortality, transplant risk, cardiac arrhythmia detection, and stroke incidence with cardiac devices, albeit with low reporting quality. High-quality reviews of pedometers reported moderate-quality evidence, including effects on physical activity and BMI. No reports with high-quality evidence and high methodological quality were found.

CONCLUSIONS

Researchers in this field should consider the AMSTAR-2 criteria and GRADE to produce high-quality studies in the future. In addition, patients, clinicians, and policymakers are advised to consider the results of this study before making clinical decisions regarding digital biomarkers to be informed of the degree of certainty of the various interventions investigated in this study. The results of this study should be considered with its limitations, such as the narrow time frame.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

RR2-10.2196/28204.

Disease-Related Costs Published in The Middle East and North Africa Region: Systematic Review and Analysis of Transferability

BACKGROUND

In the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) the scarcity of local cost data is a key barrier to conducting health economic evaluations. We systematically reviewed reports of disease-related costs from MENA and analysed their transferability within the region.

METHODS

We searched PubMed and included full text English papers that reported disease-related costs from the local populations of Algeria, Bahrain, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Oman, Palestine, Qatar, Syria, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates and Yemen between 1995 and 2019. Screening, study selection and data extraction were done in duplicate. Study-related variables, costing methods, all costs and their characteristics were extracted and analysed via descriptive methods. From multi-country studies of MENA employing homogenous costing methods, we estimated the ratio (cost transfer coefficient) between the relative differences in direct medical costs and macroeconomic indicators via robust regression. We predicted each cost via the estimated cost transfer formula and evaluated prediction error between true and predicted (transferred) costs.

RESULTS

The search yielded 1646 records, 206 full text papers and 3525 costs from 84 diagnoses. Transferability was analysed involving 144 direct medical costs from eight multi-country studies. Adjusting the average of available foreign costs by 0.28 times the relative difference in GDP per capita provided the most accurate estimates. The correlation between true and predicted costs was 0.96; 68% of predicted costs fell in the true ± 50% range. Predictions were more accurate for costs from studies that involved the largest number of countries, for countries outside the Gulf region and for drug costs versus unit or disease costs.

CONCLUSION

The estimated cost transfer formula allows the prediction of missing costs in MENA if only GDP per capita is available for adjustment to the local setting. Input costs for the formula should be collected from multiple sources and match the decision situation.