Muir Jeffrey M, Radhakrishnan Amruta, Ozer Stillman Ipek, Sarri Grammati
RWA Health Economics, Cytel Inc., Toronto, ON, Canada.
Value, Evidence & Health Economics, Takeda Pharmaceuticals, Lexington, MA, USA.
Clinicoecon Outcomes Res. 2024 Aug 20;16:581-596. doi: 10.2147/CEOR.S471827. eCollection 2024.
Cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA) are important in healthcare decision-making and resource allocation; however, expanding the scope of CEAs beyond the traditional clinicoeconomic concepts to also include value elements such as health equity has attracted much interest in recent years. This umbrella review aimed to synthesize evidence on how equity concepts have been considered in modified types of CEAs. Publicly available articles in MEDLINE were searched on January 25, 2024, to identify systematic reviews (SLRs) published in English since 2013 that incorporate health equity considerations in CEAs. Title/abstract, full-text article screening and data extraction were conducted by a single reviewer and validated by a second reviewer. Results were qualitatively synthesized to identify common themes. Eight SLRs were included. Distributional CEAs (DCEA), equity-based weighting, extended CEA (ECEA), mathematical programming and multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) were the most discussed approaches. A lack of consensus on the best approach for incorporating health equity into CEAs was highlighted, as these approaches are not currently consistently used in decision-making. Important limitations included scarcity of robust data to inform health equity indices, bias associated with commonly used health outcome metrics and the challenge of accounting for additional contextual factors such as fairness and opportunity costs. Proposals to expand CEAs to address equity issues come with challenges due to data unavailability, methods complexity, and decision-makers unfamiliarity with these approaches. Our review indicates that extended and distributional CEAs can support decision-making by capturing the impact of inequity on the clinical and cost-effectiveness assessment of treatments, although future modeling should account for additional contextual factors such as fairness and opportunity costs. Recommendations for actions moving forward include standardization of data collection for outcomes related to equity and familiarity with methodologies to account for the complexities of integrating health equity considerations in CEAs.
成本效益分析(CEA)在医疗保健决策和资源分配中很重要;然而,近年来,将CEA的范围从传统的临床经济概念扩展到还包括健康公平等价值要素引起了广泛关注。本综述旨在综合关于公平概念如何在改良类型的CEA中得到考虑的证据。2024年1月25日在MEDLINE上搜索了公开可用的文章,以识别自2013年以来以英文发表的纳入了CEA中健康公平考虑因素的系统评价(SLR)。由一名审稿人进行标题/摘要、全文筛选和数据提取,并由第二名审稿人进行验证。对结果进行定性综合以识别共同主题。纳入了八项SLR。分布性成本效益分析(DCEA)、基于公平的加权、扩展成本效益分析(ECEA)、数学规划和多标准决策分析(MCDA)是讨论最多的方法。强调了在将健康公平纳入CEA的最佳方法上缺乏共识,因为这些方法目前在决策中并未得到一致使用。重要的局限性包括缺乏有力数据来为健康公平指数提供信息、与常用健康结果指标相关的偏差以及考虑公平和机会成本等额外背景因素的挑战。由于数据不可用、方法复杂以及决策者对这些方法不熟悉,将CEA扩展以解决公平问题的提议面临挑战。我们的综述表明,扩展和分布性CEA可以通过捕捉不公平对治疗的临床和成本效益评估的影响来支持决策,尽管未来的模型应考虑公平和机会成本等额外背景因素。未来行动的建议包括对与公平相关的结果进行数据收集的标准化,以及熟悉将健康公平考虑因素纳入CEA复杂性的方法。