Department of Health Economics, Corvinus University of Budapest, Fővám tér 8., 1093, Budapest, Hungary.
Doctoral School of Business and Management, Corvinus University of Budapest, Fővám tér 8., 1093, Budapest, Hungary.
Eur J Health Econ. 2019 Jun;20(Suppl 1):155-172. doi: 10.1007/s10198-019-01066-x. Epub 2019 May 18.
To date, a multi-country review evaluating the cost-of-illness (COI) studies from the Central and Eastern European (CEE) region has not yet been published. Our main objective was to provide a general description about published COI studies from CEE.
A systematic search was performed between 1 January 2006 and 1 June 2017 in Medline, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and Web of Science to identify all relevant COI studies from nine CEE countries. COI studies reporting costs without any restrictions by age, co-morbidities, or treatment were included. Methodology, publication standards, and cost results were analysed.
We identified 58 studies providing 83 country-specific COI results: Austria (n = 9), Bulgaria (n = 16), Croatia (n = 3), the Czech Republic (n = 10), Hungary (n = 24), Poland (n = 11), Romania (n = 3), Slovakia (n = 3), and Slovenia (n = 4). Endocrine, nutritional, and metabolic diseases (18%), neoplasms (12%), infections (11%), and neurological disorders (11%) were the most frequently studied clinical areas, and multiple sclerosis was the most commonly studied disease. Overall, 57 (98%) of the studies explicitly stated the source of resource use data, 45 (78%) the study perspective, 34 (64%) the costing method, and 24 (58%) reported at least one unit costs. Regardless of methodological differences, a positive relationship was observed between costs of diseases and countries' per capita GDP.
Cost-of-illness studies varied considerably in terms of methodology, publication practice, and clinical areas. Due to these heterogeneities, transferability of the COI results is limited across Central and Eastern European countries.
迄今为止,尚未发表过来自中东欧(CEE)地区的多国成本效益研究综述。我们的主要目的是提供 CEE 地区已发表的成本效益研究的总体描述。
我们在 2006 年 1 月 1 日至 2017 年 6 月 1 日期间在 Medline、EMBASE、The Cochrane Library、CINAHL 和 Web of Science 中进行了系统检索,以确定来自 9 个 CEE 国家的所有相关成本效益研究。纳入了无年龄、合并症或治疗限制的报告成本的成本效益研究。分析了方法学、出版标准和成本结果。
我们确定了 58 项研究,提供了 83 项特定国家的成本效益结果:奥地利(n=9)、保加利亚(n=16)、克罗地亚(n=3)、捷克共和国(n=10)、匈牙利(n=24)、波兰(n=11)、罗马尼亚(n=3)、斯洛伐克(n=3)和斯洛文尼亚(n=4)。最常研究的临床领域是内分泌、营养和代谢疾病(18%)、肿瘤(12%)、感染(11%)和神经障碍(11%),最常研究的疾病是多发性硬化症。总体而言,57(98%)项研究明确说明了资源使用数据的来源,45(78%)项研究说明了研究视角,34(64%)项研究说明了成本计算方法,24(58%)项研究报告了至少一项单位成本。尽管方法学存在差异,但疾病成本与各国人均 GDP 之间呈正相关关系。
成本效益研究在方法学、出版实践和临床领域存在很大差异。由于这些异质性,CEE 国家之间的成本效益结果的可转移性有限。