MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2124326496 · doi:10.3111/13696998.2012.734886

The cost effectiveness of palivizumab in congenital heart disease: a review of the current evidence

2012· review· en· W2124326496 on OpenAlexaff
Julia M Hussman, Krista L. Lanctôt, Bosco Paes

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Medical Economics · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCongenital Heart Disease Studies
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPalivizumabMedicineHeart diseaseCost effectivenessPediatricsQuality of life (healthcare)Quality-adjusted life yearMEDLINECost–utility analysisIntensive care medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To review and summarize the literature concerning the cost-effectiveness of palivizumab compared to no prophylaxis in infants and young children with congenital heart disease (CHD). METHODS: A systematic literature search (MEDLINE to March 2012, limited to English language) identified studies that examined the cost-effectiveness of palivizumab in CHD populations. The quality of each study was assigned a quality score of 1-100 based on the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) instrument. RESULTS: Ten studies were identified through the search strategy, of which four principally addressed the research question and six additional articles examined CHD in conjunction with other high-risk indications for palivizumab in their economic analyses. QHES for the studies ranged from 58-100, with a median score of 93 (76 for principal articles, 94 for secondary analyses). Cost-utility analyses, which evaluated costs per quality-adjusted life year (QALY), showed favorable results in five analyses (range $10,329-$16,648 per QALY), while the other two suggested no cost-effectiveness ($146,061 and $169,971 per QALY). Of three cost-effectiveness analyses, which assessed costs per hospital admission prevented (HAP), two concluded that the drug was not cost-effective ($16,216/day of hospitalization prevented and $868,296/HAP), while one did not interpret the final result ($43,561/HAP). LIMITATIONS: Significant variance exists across study characteristics, analytic models utilized, duration of RSV seasons assessed, primary outcome measures evaluated, sensitivity analyses conducted, and other model assumptions. Further, it was difficult to obtain true CHD-based quality scores for the studies that analyzed more than one indication. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this review currently remain inconclusive. Although a favorable trend was identified in the cost-utility analyses, additional rigorously conducted studies are necessary to better estimate the cost-effectiveness of palivizumab for CHD infants in clinical practice.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.036
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.036
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.006
Bibliometrics0.0100.010
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.096
GPT teacher head0.413
Teacher spread0.317 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations19
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Medical EconomicsSame topicCongenital Heart Disease StudiesFrench-language works237,207