Cost and cost-effectiveness of mHealth interventions for the prevention and control of type 2 diabetes mellitus: A systematic review.

The prevalence of type 2 diabetes mellitus continues to rise and simultaneously technology has contributed to the growth of MHealth interventions for its prevention, monitoring and management. This systematic review aimed to summarize and evaluate the quality of the published evidence on cost and cost-effectiveness of mHealth interventions for T2DM. A systematic literature search of PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science was conducted for papers up to end of April 2019. We included all partial or full economic evaluations providing cost or cost-effectiveness results for mHealth interventions targeting individuals diagnosed with, or at risk of, type 2 diabetes mellitus. Twenty-three studies met the inclusion criteria. Intervention cost varied substantially based on the type and numbers or combination of technologies used, ranging from 1.8 INT $ to 10101.1 INT $ per patient per year. The studies which presented cost effectiveness results demonstrated highly cost-effective interventions, with cost per QALY gained ranging from 0.4 to 62.5 percent of GDP per capita of the country. The quality of partial economic evaluations was on average lower than that of full economic evaluations. Cost of mHealth interventions varied substantially based on type and combination of technology used, however, where cost-effectiveness results were reported, the intervention was cost-effective. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42019123476; Registered: 27/01/2019.

Cost and cost-effectiveness of mHealth interventions for the prevention and control of type 2 diabetes mellitus: a protocol for a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) remains one of the most common chronic diseases of adulthood which creates high degrees of morbidity and mortality worldwide. The incidence of T2DM continues to rise and recently, mHealth interventions have been increasingly used in the prevention, monitoring and management of T2DM. The aim of this study is to systematically review the published evidence on cost and cost-effectiveness of mHealth interventions for T2DM, as well as assess the quality of reporting of the evidence. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A comprehensive review of PubMed, EMBASE, Science Direct and Web of Science of articles published until January 2019 will be conducted. Included studies will be partial or full economic evaluations which provide cost or cost-effectiveness results for mHealth interventions targeting individuals diagnosed with, or at risk of, T2DM. The quality of reporting evidence will be assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist. Results will be presented using a flowchart following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) guidelines. Graphical and tabulated representations of the results will be created for both descriptive and numerical results. The cost and cost-effectiveness values will be presented as reported by the original studies as well as converted into international dollars to allow comparability. As we are predicting heterogenous results, we will conduct a narrative and interpretive analysis of the data. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No formal approval or review of ethics is required for this systematic review as it will involve the collection and analysis of secondary data. This protocol follows the current PRISMA-P guidelines. The review will provide information on the cost and cost-effectiveness of mHealth interventions targeting T2DM. These results will be disseminated through publication and submission to conferences for presentations and posters. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019123476.

Incidence and risk factors for preoperative deep venous thrombosis in 314 consecutive patients undergoing surgery for spinal metastasis.

OBJECTIVE The authors of this study aimed to identify the incidence of and risk factors for preoperative deep venous thrombosis (DVT) in patients undergoing surgical treatment for spinal metastases. METHODS Univariate analysis of patient age, sex, ethnicity, laboratory values, comorbidities, preoperative ambulatory status, histopathological classification, spinal level, and surgical details was performed. Factors significantly associated with DVT univariately were entered into a multivariate logistic regression model. RESULTS The authors identified 314 patients, of whom 232 (73.9%) were screened preoperatively for a DVT. Of those screened, 22 (9.48%) were diagnosed with a DVT. The screened patients were older (median 62 vs 55 years, p = 0.0008), but otherwise similar in baseline characteristics. Nonambulatory status, previous history of DVT, lower partial thromboplastin time, and lower hemoglobin level were statistically significant and independent factors associated with positive results of screening for a DVT. Results of screening were positive in only 6.4% of ambulatory patients in contrast to 24.4% of nonambulatory patients, yielding an odds ratio of 4.73 (95% CI 1.88-11.90). All of the patients who had positive screening results underwent preoperative placement of an inferior vena cava filter. CONCLUSIONS Patients requiring surgery for spinal metastases represent a population with unique risks for venous thromboembolism. This study showed a 9.48% incidence of DVT in patients screened preoperatively. The highest rates of preoperative DVT were identified in nonambulatory patients, who were found to have a 4-fold increase in the likelihood of harboring a DVT. Understanding the preoperative thrombotic status may provide an opportunity for early intervention and risk stratification in this critically ill population.