According to the most traditional economic evaluation manuals, all “relevant” costs should be included in the economic analysis, taking into account factors such as the patient population, setting, location, year, perspective and time horizon. However, cost information may be designed for other purposes. Health care organisations may lack sophisticated accounting systems and consequently, health economists may be unfamiliar with cost accounting terminology, which may lead to discrepancy in terms used in the economic evaluation literature and management accountancy. This paper identifies new tendencies in costing methodologies in health care and critically comments on each included article. For better clarification of terminology, a pragmatic glossary of terms is proposed. A scoping review of English and Spanish language literature (2005–2018) was conducted to identify new tendencies in costing methodologies in health care. The databases PubMed, Scopus and EconLit were searched. A total of 21 studies were included yielding 43 costing analysis. The most common analysis was top-down micro-costing (49%), followed by top-down gross-costing (37%) and bottom-up micro-costing (14%). Resource data were collected prospectively in 12 top-down studies (32%). Hospital database was the most common way of collection of resource data (44%) in top-down gross-costing studies. In top-down micro-costing studies, the most resource use data collection was the combination of several methods (38%). In general, substantial inconsistencies in the costing methods were found. The convergence of top-down and bottom-up methods may be an important topic in the next decades.

BackgroundThe high prevalence of women that do not reach the recommended level of physical activity is worrisome. A sedentary lifestyle has negative consequences on health status and increases health care costs. The main objective of this project is to assess the cost-effectiveness of a primary care-based exercise intervention in perimenopausal women.Methods/DesignThe present study is a Randomized Controlled Trial.A total of 150 eligible women will be recruited and randomly assigned to either a 16-week exercise intervention (3 sessions/week), or to usual care (control) group.The primary outcome measure is the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. The secondary outcome measures are: i) socio-demographic and clinical information; ii) body composition; iii) dietary patterns; iv) glycaemic and lipid profile; v) physical fitness; vi) physical activity and sedentary behaviour; vii) sleep quality; viii) quality of life, mental health and positive health; ix) menopause symptoms. All outcomes will be assessed at baseline and post intervention. The data will be analysed on an intention-to-treat basis and per protocol. In addition, we will conduct a cost effectiveness analysis from a health system perspective.DiscussionThe intervention designed is feasible and if it proves to be clinically and cost effective, it can be easily transferred to other similar contexts. Consequently, the findings of this project might help the Health Systems to identify strategies for primary prevention and health promotion as well as to reduce health care requirements and costs.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02358109. Date of registration: 05/02/2015

Breast cancer is one of the most frequent malignancies. The aim of the article is to analyse the cost-utility ratio and budgetary impact of talazoparib treatment for patients with locally advanced or metastatic gBRCA þ breast cancer from the perspective of the Spanish National Health System. Analyses were based on the EMBRACA clinical trial and the model was constructed according to "partitioned survival analysis". Two scenarios were considered in order to compare talazoparib with the alternatives of capecitabine, vinorelbine and eribulin: 1. Chemotherapy in patients pre-treated with anthracyclines/taxanes and, 2. A second-and subsequent-line treatment option. Treatment types following relapse were recorded in the mentioned clinical trial. The effectiveness measure used was quality-adjusted life years (QALY). The average health cost of patients treated at 43 months with talazoparib was 84,360.86V, whilst current treatment costs were 26,683.90V. The effectiveness of talazoparib was 1.93 years of survival (1.09 QALY) relative to 1.58 years (0.83 QALY) in the treatment group. The incremental cost-utility ratio was 252,420.04V/QALY. This represents the additional cost required to earn an additional QALY when changing from regular treatment to talazoparib. Regarding budgetary impact, the number of patients susceptible to receiving treatment with between 94 and 202 talazoparib was estimated, according to scenario and likelihood. The 3-year cost difference was between 6.9 and 9 million euros. The economic evaluation conducted shows an elevated incremental cost-utility ratio and budgetary impact. Taking these results into account, the price of talazoparib would have to be lower than that taken as a reference to reach the cost-utility thresholds.

The main findings of the present study indicate a weak association of objectively measured MVPA with menopause symptomatology. Exploratory analyses suggest that upper-body flexibility was associated with slightly lower overall menopause impact whereas neither MVPA nor any physical fitness components studied were associated with vasomotor symptoms.

Background Longer time intervals to diagnosis and treatment are associated with worse survival for various types of cancer. The patient, diagnostic, and treatment intervals are considered core indicators for early diagnosis and treatment. This review estimated the median duration of these intervals for various types of cancer and compared it across high- and lower-income countries. Methods and findings We conducted a systematic review with meta-analysis (prospectively registered protocol CRD42020200752). Three databases (MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science) and information sources including grey literature (Google Scholar, OpenGrey, EThOS, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses) were searched. Eligible articles were published during 2009 to 2022 and reported the duration of the following intervals in adult patients diagnosed with primary symptomatic cancer: patient interval (from the onset of symptoms to first presentation to a healthcare professional), diagnostic interval (from first presentation to diagnosis), and treatment interval (from diagnosis to treatment start). Interval duration was recorded in days and study medians were combined in a pooled estimate with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The methodological quality of studies was assessed using the Aarhus checklist. A total of 410 articles representing 68 countries and reporting on 5,537,594 patients were included. The majority of articles reported data from high-income countries (n = 294, 72%), with 116 (28%) reporting data from lower-income countries. Pooled meta-analytic estimates were possible for 38 types of cancer. The majority of studies were conducted on patients with breast, lung, colorectal, and head and neck cancer. In studies from high-income countries, pooled median patient intervals generally did not exceed a month for most cancers. However, in studies from lower-income countries, patient intervals were consistently 1.5 to 4 times longer for almost all cancer sites. The majority of data on the diagnostic and treatment intervals came from high-income countries. Across both high- and lower-income countries, the longest diagnostic intervals were observed for hematological (71 days [95% CI 52 to 85], e.g., myelomas (83 days [47 to 145])), genitourinary (58 days [50 to 77], e.g., prostate (85 days [57 to 112])), and digestive/gastrointestinal (57 days [45 to 67], e.g., colorectal (63 days [48 to 78])) cancers. Similarly, the longest treatment intervals were observed for genitourinary (57 days [45 to 66], e.g., prostate (75 days [61 to 87])) and gynecological (46 days [38 to 54], e.g., cervical (69 days [45 to 108]) cancers. In studies from high-income countries, the implementation of cancer-directed policies was associated with shorter patient and diagnostic intervals for several cancers. This review included a large number of studies conducted worldwide but is limited by survivor bias and the inherent complexity and many possible biases in the measurement of time points and intervals in the cancer treatment pathway. In addition, the subintervals that compose the diagnostic interval (e.g., primary care interval, referral to diagnosis interval) were not considered. Conclusions These results identify the cancers where diagnosis and treatment initiation may take the longest and reveal the extent of global disparities in early diagnosis and treatment. Efforts should be made to reduce help-seeking times for cancer symptoms in lower-income countries. Estimates for the diagnostic and treatment intervals came mostly from high-income countries that have powerful health information systems in place to record such information.