BackgroundA significant number of women in low and middle income countries (L-MICs) who need any family planning, experience a lack in access to modern effective methods. This study was conducted to review potential cost effectiveness of scaling up family planning interventions in these regions from the published literatures and assess their implication for policy and future research.Study designA systematic review was performed in several electronic databases i.e Medline (Pubmed), Embase, Popline, The National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), EBSCOHost, and The Cochrane Library. Articles reporting full economic evaluations of strategies to improve family planning interventions in one or more L-MICs, published between 1995 until 2015 were eligible for inclusion. Data was synthesized and analyzed using a narrative approach and the reporting quality of the included studies was assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement.ResultsFrom 920 references screened, 9 studies were eligible for inclusion. Six references assessed cost effectiveness of improving family planning interventions in one or more L-MICs, while the rest assessed costs and consequences of integrating family planning and HIV services, concerning sub-Saharan Africa. Assembled evidence suggested that improving family planning interventions is cost effective in a variety of L-MICs as measured against accepted international cost effectiveness benchmarks. In areas with high HIV prevalence, integrating family planning and HIV services can be efficient and cost effective; however the evidence is only supported by a very limited number of studies. The major drivers of cost effectiveness were cost of increasing coverage, effectiveness of the interventions and country-specific factors.ConclusionImproving family planning interventions in low and middle income countries appears to be cost-effective. Additional economic evaluation studies with improved reporting quality are necessary to generate further evidence on costs, cost-effectiveness, and affordability, and to support increased funding and investments in family planning programs.

BackgroundPre-eclampsia is a pregnancy complication affecting both mother and fetus. Although there is no proven effective method to prevent pre-eclampsia, early identification of women at risk of pre-eclampsia could enhance appropriate application of antenatal care, management and treatment. Very little is known about the cost effectiveness of these and other tests for pre-eclampsia, mainly because there is no clear treatment path. The aim of this study was to provide a comprehensive overview of the existing evidence on the health economics of screening, diagnosis and treatment options in pre-eclampsia.MethodsWe searched three electronic databases (PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library) for studies on screening, diagnosis, treatment or prevention of pre-eclampsia, published between 1994 and 2014. Only full papers written in English containing complete economic assessments in pre-eclampsia were included.ResultsFrom an initial total of 138 references, six papers fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Three studies were on the cost effectiveness of treatment of pre-eclampsia, two of which evaluated magnesium sulphate for prevention of seizures and the third evaluated the cost effectiveness of induction of labour versus expectant monitoring. The other three studies were aimed at screening and diagnosis, in combination with subsequent preventive measures. The two studies on magnesium sulphate were equivocal on the cost effectiveness in non-severe cases, and the other study suggested that induction of labour in term pre-eclampsia was more cost effective than expectant monitoring. The screening studies were quite diverse in their objectives as well as in their conclusions. One study concluded that screening is probably not worthwhile, while two other studies stated that in certain scenarios it may be cost effective to screen all pregnant women and prophylactically treat those who are found to be at high risk of developing pre-eclampsia.DiscussionThis study is the first to provide a comprehensive overview on the economic aspects of pre-eclampsia in its broadest sense, ranging from screening to treatment options. The main limitation of the present study lies in the variety of topics in combination with the limited number of papers that could be included; this restricted the comparisons that could be made. In conclusion, novel biomarkers in screening for and diagnosing pre-eclampsia show promise, but their accuracy is a major driver of cost effectiveness, as is prevalence. Universal screening for pre-eclampsia, using a biomarker, will be feasible only when accuracy is significantly increased.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s40273-015-0291-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

No abstract

Background Preeclampsia causes substantial maternal and perinatal morbidity and mortality and significant societal economic impact. Effective screening would facilitate timely and appropriate prevention and management of preeclampsia. Objectives To develop an early cost-effectiveness analysis to assess both costs and health outcomes of a new screening test for preeclampsia from a healthcare payer perspective, in the United Kingdom (UK), Ireland, the Netherlands and Sweden. Methods A decision tree over a 9-month time horizon was developed to explore the cost-effectiveness of the new screening test for preeclampsia compared to the current screening strategy. The new test strategy is being developed so that it can stratify healthy low risk nulliparous women early in pregnancy to either a high-risk group with a risk of 1 in 6 or more of developing preeclampsia, or a low-risk group with a risk of 1 in 100 or less. The model simulated 25 plausible scenarios in a hypothetical cohort of 100,000 pregnant women, in which the sensitivity and specificity of the new test were varied to set a benchmark for the minimum test performance that is needed for the test to become cost-effective. The input parameters and costs were mainly derived from published literature. The main outcome was incremental costs per preeclampsia case averted, expressed as an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess uncertainty. Results Base case results showed that the new test strategy would be more effective and less costly compared to the current situation in the UK. In the Netherlands, the majority of scenarios would be cost-effective from a threshold of €50,000 per preeclampsia case averted, while in Ireland and Sweden, the vast majority of scenarios would be considered cost-effective only when a threshold of €100,000 was used. In the best case analyses, ICERs were more favourable in all four participating countries. Aspirin effectiveness, prevalence of preeclampsia, accuracy of the new screening test and cost of regular antenatal care were identified as driving factors for the cost-effectiveness of screening for preeclampsia. Conclusion The results indicate that the new screening test for preeclampsia has potential to be cost-effective. Further studies based on proven accuracy of the test will confirm whether the new screening test is a cost-effective additional option to the current situation.

Background: Decision-making processes regarding new vaccine prioritizations are complex. The objective of this study was to prioritize the introduction of new vaccines in Indonesia. Methods: A multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) was applied in this study. A preliminary data collection form was developed to collect country-specific data in relation to 30 pre-defined attributes. In particular, an open-ended questionnaire was conducted among targeted respondents from global level, national level and vaccine manufacturers, which were involved in the financial flows of new vaccine procurement in Indonesia. For setting new vaccines priorities, targeted respondents were asked to assign weight on 10 selected criteria. Results: Top 3 attributes with the highest weight from respondents were premature deaths averted per year, incident cases prevented per year, and cost-effectiveness. Applying criteria scores and weight assessment, the result showed that PCV, rotavirus, HPV, and JE would be on the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th rank for setting new vaccine priority in Indonesia. There was a significant difference score (p value <0.05) between all these vaccines. Conclusions: PCV, rotavirus and HPV vaccines should be more prioritized than JE vaccine. This ranking is in line with the WHO's priority list, which potentially illustrates the validity and usefulness of our MCDA-approach.

The introduction of the rotavirus vaccine in Indonesia is currently in its infancy. Delay in its development might be caused by factors related to the perceived value of the vaccine, health system characteristics and policy considerations. Other factors, which may also interfere with optimizing the introduction, are financial barriers because Indonesia is a lower-middle-income country. Creating fiscal space to finance new immunization programs, such as for the rotavirus immunization, is very important to ensure the sustainability of new programs so that such programs would be financed over the long term and not endanger the sustainability of the Indonesian government's financial position. This article provides an illustration of the various steps needed to accelerate the introduction of the rotavirus immunization.

BackgroundPrior studies reported that exposure to antidepressants during pregnancy may be associated with gestational hypertension. The aim of this study is to assess the association between the use of antidepressants during pregnancy and the risk of developing gestational hypertension.MethodsA retrospective cohort study using the prescription database IADB.nl was conducted among nulliparous women with singleton pregnancies between 1994 and 2015 in the Netherlands. Logistic regression analysis was used to estimate odds ratios (OR), adjusted OR (aOR) and their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). Gestational hypertension as main outcome measure was defined as at least one dispensed record of an antihypertensive drug (methyldopa, nifedipine, labetalol, ketanserin, nicardipine) after 20 weeks of gestation until 14 days after delivery. Sub-analyses were conducted for class of antidepressant, duration and amount of use of antidepressant (≤30, ≥30 Defined Daily Doses or DDDs), and maternal age. Sensitivity analyses to assess uncertainties were conducted.ResultsTwenty-eight thousand twenty women were included, of which 539 (1.92%) used antidepressants. The risk of gestational hypertension was doubled for women using antidepressant (aOR 2.00 95% CI 1.28–3.13). Significant associations were also found for the subgroup selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) (aOR 2.07 95% CI 1.25–3.44), ≥30 DDDs (aOR 2.50 95% CI 1.55–3.99) and maternal age of 30–34 years (aOR 2.59 95% CI 1.35–4.98). Varying the theoretical gestational age showed comparable results.ConclusionProlonged use of antidepressants during the first 20 weeks of gestation appeared to be associated with an increased risk of developing gestational hypertension. When balancing the benefits and risks of using these drugs during pregnancy, this should be taken into account.

Background Safe and effective vaccination is considered to be the most critical strategy to fight coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), leading to individual and herd immunity protection. We aimed to systematically review the economic evaluation of COVID-19 vaccination globally. Methods We performed a systematic search to identify relevant studies in two major databases (MEDLINE/PubMed and EBSCO) published until September 8, 2022. After deduplication, two researchers independently screened the study titles and abstracts according to pre-determined inclusion and exclusion criteria. The remaining full-text studies were assessed for eligibility. We assessed their quality of reporting using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) 2022 checklist and summarized and narratively presented the results. Results We identified 25 studies that assessed the economic evaluation of COVID-19 vaccination worldwide by considering several input parameters, including vaccine cost, vaccine efficacy, utility value, and the size of the targeted population. All studies suggested that COVID-19 vaccination was a cost-effective or cost-saving intervention for mitigating coronavirus transmission and its effect in many countries within certain conditions. Most studies reported vaccine efficacy values ranging from 65% to 75%. Conclusions Given the favorable cost-effectiveness profile of COVID-19 vaccines and disparities in affordability across countries, considering prioritization has become paramount. This review provides comprehensive insights into the economic evaluation of COVID-19 vaccination that will be useful to policymakers, particularly in highlighting preventive measures and preparedness plans for the next possible pandemic.