Pak Anton, O'Grady Madeline, Holtmann Gerald, Shah Ayesha, Tuffaha Haitham
Centre for the Business and Economics of Health, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, 4072, Australia.
Faculty of Medicine, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
Pharmacoeconomics. 2025 Mar;43(3):249-269. doi: 10.1007/s40273-024-01455-y. Epub 2024 Nov 21.
Disorders of gut-brain interaction are highly prevalent and burdensome conditions for both patients and healthcare systems. Given the limited effectiveness of pharmacotherapy in treating disorders of gut-brain interaction, non-pharmacological interventions are increasingly used; however, the value for money of non-pharmacological treatments is uncertain. This is the first review to assess the economic evaluation evidence of non-pharmacological interventions for disorders of gut-brain interaction.
A scoping review was conducted in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines. Reporting adhered to ISPOR's good practices for systematic reviews with cost and cost-effectiveness outcomes. Comprehensive searches were performed on 24 October, 2023, and an updated search was run on 18 May, 2024 in PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus and the International HTA database, with two reviewers screening studies in parallel. The novel Criteria for Health Economic Quality Evaluation (CHEQUE) framework was used to assess methodological and reporting quality. Reporting quality was further assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) 2022.
Fifteen studies were included. Most studies examined treatments for irritable bowel syndrome. Cognitive behavioural therapy, dietary interventions and sacral neuromodulation were cost effective. Acupuncture and physiotherapy were not. CHEQUE assessment showed 12 studies met at least 70% of the methodological criteria, and 14 studies achieved 70% or more for reporting quality.
This review highlights gaps in the current evidence base, particularly in the robustness and generalisability of results due to methodological inconsistencies. Future research should incorporate longer follow-ups, comprehensive cost assessments, subgroup analyses, equity considerations and clearer justifications for modelling assumptions.
肠-脑互动障碍在患者和医疗系统中都极为普遍且负担沉重。鉴于药物治疗在治疗肠-脑互动障碍方面效果有限,非药物干预措施的使用越来越多;然而,非药物治疗的性价比尚不确定。这是首次评估针对肠-脑互动障碍的非药物干预措施的经济学评价证据的综述。
按照系统评价与Meta分析扩展版的首选报告项目(PRISMA-ScR)指南进行了一项范围综述。报告遵循了国际药效经济学和结果研究协会(ISPOR)关于具有成本和成本效益结果的系统评价的良好实践。于2023年10月24日进行了全面检索,并于2024年5月18日在PubMed/MEDLINE、Embase、科学网、Scopus和国际卫生技术评估数据库中进行了更新检索,由两名评审员并行筛选研究。采用新的健康经济质量评估标准(CHEQUE)框架来评估方法学和报告质量。使用2022年《卫生经济评估报告统一标准》(CHEERS)进一步评估报告质量。
纳入了15项研究。大多数研究考察了肠易激综合征的治疗方法。认知行为疗法、饮食干预和骶神经调节具有成本效益。针灸和物理治疗则不然。CHEQUE评估显示,12项研究符合至少70%的方法学标准,14项研究的报告质量达到70%或更高。
本综述凸显了当前证据基础中的差距,尤其是由于方法学不一致导致结果的稳健性和可推广性方面的差距。未来的研究应纳入更长时间的随访、全面的成本评估、亚组分析、公平性考量以及对建模假设更清晰的理由说明。