Economics of gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors
Despite current interest, enthusiasm and progress in the development of therapies for gastroenteropancreatic (GEP) neuroendocrine tumors (NETs), there are substantial gaps in the published literature regarding cost-of-illness analyses, economic evaluation and budget impact analyses. Compounding the...
| Autores: | , , , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Tipo de recurso: | artículo |
| Fecha de publicación: | 2019 |
| País: | España |
| Institución: | Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona |
| Repositorio: | Dipòsit Digital de Documents de la UAB |
| Idioma: | inglés |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:ddd.uab.cat:226372 |
| Acceso en línea: | https://ddd.uab.cat/record/226372 https://dx.doi.org/urn:doi:10.1177/2042018819828217 |
| Access Level: | acceso abierto |
| Palabra clave: | Budget impact Cost-of-illness Costs Economic burden Economic evaluation Gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors Resource utilization Systematic review |
| Sumario: | Despite current interest, enthusiasm and progress in the development of therapies for gastroenteropancreatic (GEP) neuroendocrine tumors (NETs), there are substantial gaps in the published literature regarding cost-of-illness analyses, economic evaluation and budget impact analyses. Compounding the issue is that data on resource utilization and cost-effectiveness of different diagnostic and therapeutic modalities for GEP-NETs are scarce. A systematic review on the economic impact of GEP-NETs was carried out using four databases: EMBASE, PubMed, the National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database and Cochrane review. Fully published articles from January 2000 to May 2017, in English and Spanish, were included. All articles that satisfied the inclusion criteria were included in the systematic review; summary descriptive statistics were used to describe the methodological characteristics. The 14 studies selected included cost-of-illness analyses (n = 4), economic evaluations (n = 7) and budget impact analyses (n = 3). Almost all studies were performed in the United States. Healthcare costs for patients with NETs included medication, outpatient visits, hospitalizations, and check-ups/tests. Reducing adverse events is an area where cost savings could be achieved; however, there was not enough evidence on the cost impact of adverse events. There is a lack of data related to resource utilization in the field of GEP-NETs. Therefore, cost-effectiveness and budget impact studies of existing and emerging treatments are urgently needed to help the decision-making process for patients with NETs. |
|---|