ABSTRACT
Unsafe patient care can result in an adverse event that may lead to hospitalization, disability, or death. India has a vast and diverse population with varying degrees of access to tertiary healthcare. However, there is a lack of studies analyzing the burden of healthcare-related adverse events. We aimed to determine the burden of adverse effects of medical treatment (AEMT) in India from 2010 to 2019 using the global burden of disease (GBD) 2019 study database. Using the GBD data, we computed estimates for deaths and disability-adjusted life years (DALY) due to AEMT at the national level and stratified them based on age and gender. AEMT contributed to less than 0.01 % of death and DALY rates due to all causes in India. From 2010 to 2019, there was a decrease in the death rate from 2.34 (1.75-2.66) to 2.33 (1.73-2.86) per 100000 population. The number of deaths and DALYs was highest in the 50-74-year age group and in females. There has been a decrease in the death and DALY rates in India over the past decade. AEMT accounts for only a small percentage of deaths due to all causes; however, the potential underreporting and the impact of medical treatment-related adverse events on the public perception regarding healthcare services need to be studied.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Radiation therapy is used to treat head and neck cancer (HNC) patients. Proton beam therapy (PBT) is one of the newer treatment options. This systematic review will describe the cost and cost-effectiveness of PBT compared with other first-line treatment options based on available literature and provide a better understanding of its usage in HNC in the future. METHODS: This systematic review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Systematic searches were conducted in PUBMED, EMBASE and SCOPUS till February 2022. Original pharmacoeconomic articles written in English that considered PBT for HNC were included; the title, abstract and full text of the search items were screened. The included studies were critically appraised using the Drummond Checklist followed by data extraction. RESULTS: Eight of the ten included studies were of good quality; most were cost-effectiveness or cost comparison studies and used the Markov model and lifetime horizon. The dominant comparator was intensity-modulated radiotherapy. The willingness to pay threshold ranged from $30,828 to $150,000 per QALY. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was between $4,436.1 and $695,000 per QALY. In HNC patients with human papillomavirus infection, the ICER was lower ($288,000/QALY) from the payer's perspective, but much higher ($390,000/QALY) from the societal perspective. CONCLUSION: Our systematic review showed that appropriate patient selection can make PBT cost-effective. HPV-associated tumors can be cost-effectively treated with PBT. From the payer's perspective, PBT is a cost-effective treatment option. In younger patients, PBT can result in lesser incidence of adverse effects, and hence, can reduce the subsequent need for long-term supportive care. Lower fractionation schedules can also make PBT a cost-effective treatment.
