Financial burden of prostate cancer in the Iranian population: a cost of illness and financial risk protection analysis.

BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer is the second most common cancer in males worldwide and the third most common among Iran's male population. However, there is a lack of evidence regarding its direct and indirect costs in low and middle-income countries. This study intends to bridge the gap using a cost of illness approach, assessing the costs of prostate cancer from the perspectives of patients, society, and the insurance system. METHODS: Two hundred ninety seven patients were included in the study. Data for a 2-month period were obtained from patients registered at two hospitals (Tabriz, Tehran) in Iran in 2017. We applied a prevalence-based, bottom-up approach to assess the costs of the illness. We used the World Health Organization methods to measure the prevalence and investigate the determinants of catastrophic and impoverishing health expenditures. RESULTS: We determined the total costs of the disease for the patients to be IRR 68 million (PPP $ 5,244.44). Total costs of the disease from the perspective of the society amounted to IRR 700,000 million (PPP $ 54 million). Insurance companies expended IRR 20 million (PPP $ 1,558.80) per patient. Our findings show that 31% of the patients incurred catastrophic health expenditure due to the disease. Five point forty-four percent (5.44%) of the patients were impoverished due to the costs of this cancer. CONCLUSION: We found an alarmingly high prevalence of catastrophic health expenditures among prostate cancer patients. In addition, prostate cancer puts a substantial burden on both the patients and society.

Cost-Effectiveness of Screening Helicobacter pylori for Gastric Cancer Prevention: a Systematic Review.

Globally, prevalence of Helicobacter pylori is around 50%, and it has a directly proportional relationship with gastric cancer. Screening and treatment of Helicobacter pylori could reduce gastric cancer by 35%. Drawing on the scarce resources, it is reasonable to use the most cost-effectiveness Helicobacter pylori screening procedure. The purpose of this study was to evaluate Helicobacter pylori screening techniques and to specify the efficient technique from a cost-effectiveness perspective. This systematic review was conducted via searching electronic databases including Scopus, Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Reviews. Our search retrieved 904 articles, of which, 606 full-text studies have been selected after duplicate removal. Next, the 25 articles were sorted based on eligibility criteria and quality appraisal; eventually, only eight studies have been included for analysis. We reported the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) screening compared to non-screening and different screening strategies. Eight studies were identified and retained for the final analysis. In this study, when screening techniques were compared to no-screening, serology screening techniques showed to be cost-effective. The lowest ICER calculated was US$$1230 cost per life-year gained (LYG) and US$1500 cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). However, determining the optimal strategy compared to other strategies was depended on parameters such as context-specific, type of cost, threshold, and perspective, and also, it influenced by the framework of the cost-effectiveness analysis.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review.

INTRODUCTION: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a significant health problem with an increasing incidence worldwide. Screening is one of the ways, in which cases and deaths of CRC can be prevented. The objective of this systematic review was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the different CRC screening techniques and to specify the efficient technique from a cost-effectiveness perspective. METHODS: The economic studies of CRC screening in general populations (average risk), aged 50 years and above were reviewed. Two reviewers independently reviewed the titles, abstracts, and full-texts of the studies in five databases: Cochrane, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science and PubMed. The disagreements between reviewers were resolved through the authors' consensus. The main outcome measures in this systematic review were the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of screening versus no-screening and then in comparison with other screening techniques. The ICER is defined by the difference in cost between two possible interventions, divided by the difference in their effect. RESULTS: Eight studies were identified and retained for the final analysis. In this study, when screening techniques were compared to no-screening, all CRC screening techniques showed to be cost-effective. The lowest ICER calculated was $PPP -16265/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) (the negative ICERs were between purchasing power parity in US dollar ($PPP) -16265/QALY to $PPP -1988/QALY, whereas the positive ICERs were between $PPP 1257/QALY to $PPP 55987/QALY). For studies comparing various screening techniques, there was great heterogeneity in terms of the structures of the analyses, leading to diverse conclusions about their incremental cost-effectiveness. CONCLUSION: All CRC screening techniques were cost-effective, compared with the no-screening methods. The cost-effectiveness of the various screening techniques mainly was dependent on the context-specific parameters and highly affected by the framework of the cost-effectiveness analysis. In order to make the studies comparable, it is important to adopt a reference-based methodology for economic evaluation studies.