Search

Abstract: Asthma management, education and environmental interventions have been reported as cost‐effective in a previous review (Pharm Pract (Granada), 2014;12:493), but methods used to estimate costs and outcomes were not discussed in detail. This review updates the previous review by providing economic evidence on the cost‐effectiveness of studies identified after 2012, and a detailed assessment of the methods used in all identified studies. Twelve databases were searched from 1990 to January 2016, and studies included economic evaluations, asthma subjects and nonpharmacological interventions written in English. Sixty‐four studies were included. Of these, 15 were found in addition to the earlier review; 53% were rated fair in quality and 47% high. Education and self‐management interventions were the most cost‐effective, in line with the earlier review. Self‐reporting was the most common method used to gather resource‐use data, accompanied by bottom‐up approaches to estimate costs. Main outcome measures were asthma‐related hospitalizations (69%), quality of life (41%) and utility (38%), with AQLQ and the EQ‐5D being the most common questionnaires measured prospectively at fixed time points. More rigorous costing methods are needed with a more common quality of life tool to aid greater replicability and comparability amongst asthma studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background The Harmonising Outcome Measures for Eczema ( HOME) initiative has identified quality of life (QoL) as a core outcome domain to be evaluated in every eczema trial. It is unclear which of the existing QoL instruments is most appropriate for this domain. Thus, the aim of this review was to systematically assess the measurement properties of existing measurement instruments developed and/or validated for the measurement of QoL in adult eczema. Methods We conducted a systematic literature search in PubMed and Embase identifying studies on measurement properties of adult eczema QoL instruments. For all eligible studies, we assessed the adequacy of the measurement properties and the methodological quality with the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments ( COSMIN) checklist. A best evidence synthesis summarizing findings from different studies was the basis to assign four degrees of recommendation (A-D). Results A total of 15 articles reporting on 17 instruments were included. No instrument fulfilled the criteria for category A. Six instruments were placed in category B, meaning that they have the potential to be recommended depending on the results of further validation studies. Three instruments had poor adequacy in at least one required adequacy criterion and were therefore put in category C. The remaining eight instruments were minimally validated and were thus placed in category D. Conclusions Currently, no QoL instrument can be recommended for use in adult eczema. The Quality of Life Index for Atopic Dermatitis (Qo LIAD) and the Dermatology Life Quality Index ( DLQI) are recommended for further validation research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]