The pharmacoeconomic analyses of the Chinese national drug negotiations: a systematic review_Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine

Authors：

HE Zixuan ¹ , HUANG Xianqin ² , CHEN Dingyi ² , WANG Guo’an ² , ZHU Yuezhen ² , HAN Sheng ¹ ,  GUAN Xiaodong ^1,2 , SHI Luwen ^1,2

1. International Research Center for Medicinal Administration, Peking University, Beijing 100191, P. R. China;
2. School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Peking University, Beijing 100191, P. R. China;

Corresponding author：

GUAN Xiaodong, Email: guanxiaodong@pku.edu.cn

Keywords：

National drug negotiation; Pharmacoeconomic analysis; Economic evaluation of drug

DOI：

10.7507/1672-2531.202207108

Video：

Export PDF Favorites Scan Get Citation

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Objective To systematically review the pharmacoeconomic studies of negotiated drugs in the Chinese National Reimbursement Drug List (NRDL). Methods PubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library, CNKI and WanFang Data databases were electronically searched to collect the pharmacoeconomic studies of negotiated drugs in the Chinese NRDL from January 1, 2012 to January 1, 2022. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies, then, the qualitative systematic review was performed. Results A total of 59 (33.9%) drugs were evaluated in 124 pharmacoeconomic studies. Only 23 (13.2%) drugs were evaluated in 29 (23.3%) pharmacoeconomic studies prior to the negotiation. Besides, 75 (60.5%) of the negotiated drugs were supported by evidence of economic superiority than the comparison. Conclusion The pharmacoeconomic studies on drugs which listed in the NRDL is insufficient. Future pharmacoeconomic studies should perform to provide more substantial support for the national drug negotiations.

Citation： HE Zixuan, HUANG Xianqin, CHEN Dingyi, WANG Guo’an, ZHU Yuezhen, HAN Sheng, GUAN Xiaodong, SHI Luwen. The pharmacoeconomic analyses of the Chinese national drug negotiations: a systematic review. Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine, 2023, 23(2): 159-169. doi: 10.7507/1672-2531.202207108 Copy

1.	李凯悦, 刘辉, 蒋倩. 历年国家医保谈判药品概况与分析—抗肿瘤药品专题. 肿瘤药学, 2021, 11(2): 229-235.
2.	Hill-McManus D, Marshall S, Liu J, et al. Linked pharmacometric-pharmacoeconomic modeling and simulation in clinical drug development. Clin Pharmacol Ther, 2021, 110(1): 49-63.
3.	Barnieh L, Manns B, Harris A, et al. A synthesis of drug reimbursement decision-making processes in organisation for economic co-operation and development countries. Value Health, 2014, 17(1): 98-108.
4.	Commonwealth Department of Human Services and Health. Guidelines for the pharmaceutical industry on preparation of submissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee: including major submissions involving economic analyses. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service, 1995.
5.	Cairns J. Providing guidance to the NHS: The Scottish medicines consortium and the national institute for clinical excellence compared. Health Policy, 2006, 76(2): 134-143.
6.	Canadian Coordinating Ofﬁce for Health Technology Assessment. Guidelines for economic evaluation of pharmacoeconomics. Ottawa: CCOHTA, 1994.
7.	Ofﬁce of Technology Assessment. Health care technology and its assessment in eight countries. Washington (DC): US Congress, Ofﬁce of Technology Assessment, 1995.
8.	Drummond M. Pharmacoeconomics: friend or foe. Ann Rheum Dis, 2006, 65(Suppl 3): iii44-iii47.
9.	国务院办公厅. 关于印发“十三五”深化医药卫生体制改革规划的通知, 2016-12-27. Available at: http://www.gov.cn/zhengce/content/2017-01/09/content_5158053.htm.
10.	国务院办公厅. 关于改革完善医疗卫生行业综合监管制度的指导意见. 中国卫生监督杂志, 2018, 25(5): 414-418.
11.	国家医保局. 2019年国家医保药品目录调整工作方案, 2019-04-17. Available at: http://www.gov.cn/xinwen/2019-04/19/content_5384349.htm.
12.	国家医保局. 基本医疗保险用药管理暂行办法, 2020-07-30. Available at: http://www.gov.cn/zhengce/zhengceku/2020-08/04/content_5532409.htm.
13.	Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ, 2009, 339: b2535.
14.	Husereau D, Drummond M, Augustovski F, et al. Consolidated health economic evaluation reporting standards 2022 (cheers 2022) statement: updated reporting guidance for health economic evaluations. Value Health, 2022, 25(1): 3-9.
15.	Ming J, Zhang Y, Xu X, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of intravitreal aflibercept in the treatment of diabetic macular edema in China. J Comp Eff Res, 2020, 9(3): 161-175.
16.	Gu X, Zhang Q, Chu YB, et al. Cost-effectiveness of afatinib, gefitinib, erlotinib and pemetrexed-based chemotherapy as first-line treatments for advanced non-small cell lung cancer in China. Lung Cancer, 2019, 127: 84-89.
17.	Zhu J, He W, Ye M, et al. Cost-effectiveness of afatinib and erlotinib as second-line treatments for advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the lung. Future Oncol, 2018, 14(27): 2833-2840.
18.	Wang H, Zeng C, Li X, et al. Cost-utility of afatinib and gefitinib as first-line treatment for EGFR-mutated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. Future Oncol, 2019, 15(2): 181-191.
19.	Ou HT, Chen YT, Liu YM, et al. Comparative cost-effectiveness of metformin-based dual therapies associated with risk of cardiovascular diseases among Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes: Evidence from a population-based national cohort in Taiwan. Diabetes Res Clin Pract, 2016, 116: 14-25.
20.	Guan H, Sheng Y, Guo W, et al. Cost-effectiveness of alectinib for patients with untreated ALK-positive non-small cell lung cancer in China. Adv Ther, 2019, 36(5): 1114-1125.
21.	Bai Y, Xu Y, Wu B. Cost-effectiveness and budget impact analysis of apatinib for advanced metastatic gastric cancer from the perspective of health insurance system. Gastroenterol Res Pract, 2017, 2017: 2816737.
22.	Chen HD, Zhou J, Wen F, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of apatinib treatment for chemotherapy-refractory advanced gastric cancer. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol, 2017, 143(2): 361-368.
23.	Xuan JW, Song RL, Xu GX, et al. Modeling the cost-effectiveness of ilaprazole versus omeprazole for the treatment of newly diagnosed duodenal ulcer patients in China. J Med Econ, 2016, 19(11): 1056-1060.
24.	Deng J, Gu S, Shao H, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of exenatide twice daily (BID) vs. insulin glargine once daily (QD) as add-on therapy in Chinese patients with Type 2 diabetes mellitus inadequately controlled by oral therapies. J Med Econ, 2015, 18(11): 974-989.
25.	Gu S, Wang X, Qiao Q, et al. Cost-effectiveness of exenatide twice daily vs. insulin glargine as add-on therapy to oral antidiabetic agents in patients with type 2 diabetes in China. Diabetes Obes Metab, 2017, 19(12): 1688-1697.
26.	Gong J, Wan Q, Shang J, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of anlotinib as third- or further-line treatment for relapsed small cell lung cancer (SCLC) in China. Adv Ther, 2021, 38(10): 5116-5126.
27.	Zhan M, Zheng H, Yang Y, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of maintenance olaparib in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer and a germline BRCA1/2 mutation based on the POLO trial. Cancer Manag Res, 2020, 12: 12919-12926.
28.	Li N, Zheng H, Huang Y, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of olaparib maintenance treatment for germline brca-mutated metastatic pancreatic cancer. Front Pharmacol, 2021, 12: 632818.
29.	Zhou H, Lu Y, Wu B, et al. Cost-effectiveness of omalizumab for the treatment of inadequately controlled severe allergic asthma in Chinese children. J Asthma, 2020, 57(1): 87-94.
30.	Li W, Qian L, Li W, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of different sequences of osimertinib administration for epidermal growth factor receptor-mutated non-small-cell lung cancer. Exp Ther Med, 2021, 21(4): 343.
31.	Li WQ, Li LY, Chai J, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of first-line treatments for advanced epidermal growth factor receptor-mutant non-small cell lung cancer patients. Cancer Med, 2021, 10(6): 1964-1974.
32.	Cai H, Zhang L, Li N, et al. Cost-effectiveness of osimertinib as first-line treatment and sequential therapy for EGFR mutation-positive non-small cell lung cancer in China. Clin Ther, 2019, 41(2): 280-290.
33.	Wu B, Gu X, Zhang Q. Cost-effectiveness of osimertinib for EGFR mutation-positive non-small cell lung cancer after progression following first-line EGFR TKI therapy. J Thorac Oncol, 2018, 13(2): 184-193.
34.	Rui M, Li H. Cost-effectiveness of osimertinib vs. docetaxel-bevacizumab in third-line treatment in EGFR T790M resistance mutation advanced non-small cell lung cancer in China. Clin Ther, 2020, 42(11): 2159-2170.
35.	Guan H, Liu G, Xie F, et al. Cost-effectiveness of osimertinib as a second-line treatment in patients with EGFR-mutated advanced non-small cell lung cancer in China. Clin Ther, 2019, 41(11): 2308-2320.
36.	Luo S, Weng X, Lin S, et al. Evaluation of osimertinib for advanced non-small cell lung cancer with leptomeningeal metastases: a cost-effectiveness and budget impact analysis. Int J Clin Pharm, 2022, 44(1): 192-200.
37.	Wu B, Gu X, Zhang Q, et al. Cost-effectiveness of osimertinib in treating newly diagnosed, advanced EGFR-mutation-positive non-small cell lung cancer. Oncologist, 2019, 24(3): 349-357.
38.	Li S, Li J, Peng L, et al. Cost-effectiveness of baricitinib for patients with moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis after methotrexate failed in China. Rheumatol Ther, 2021, 8(2): 863-876.
39.	Fan Q, Ming WK, Yip WY, et al. Cost-effectiveness of bedaquiline or delamanid plus background regimen for multidrug-resistant tuberculosis in a high-income intermediate burden city of China. Int J Infect Dis, 2019, 78: 44-49.
40.	Zheng H, Xie L, Zhan M, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of the addition of bevacizumab to chemotherapy as induction and maintenance therapy for metastatic non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer. Clin Transl Oncol, 2018, 20(3): 286-293.
41.	Zhan M, Zheng H, Xu T, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of additional bevacizumab to pemetrexed plus cisplatin for malignant pleural mesothelioma based on the MAPS trial. Lung Cancer, 2017, 110: 1-6.
42.	Wu B, Li J, Lin H, et al. Different strategies for the treatment of age-related macular degeneration in China: an economic evaluation. J Ophthalmol, 2016, 2016: 7689862.
43.	Li X, Li W, Hou L. A trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis of bevacizumab and chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone for advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer in China. Value Health Reg Issues, 2019, 18: 1-7.
44.	Zhang PF, Wen F, Zhou J, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of capecitabine plus bevacizumab versus capecitabine alone in elderly patients with previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer from Chinese societal perspective. Clin Transl Oncol, 2020, 22(1): 103-110.
45.	Chen Z, Zhan M, Tian F, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of the addition of bevacizumab to temozolomide therapy for the treatment of unresected glioblastoma. Oncol Lett, 2020, 19(1): 424-430.
46.	Cai X, Shi L, Yang W, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of dapagliflozin treatment versus metformin treatment in Chinese population with type 2 diabetes. J Med Econ, 2019, 22(4): 336-343.
47.	Shao H, Zhai S, Zou D, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of dapagliflozin versus glimepiride as monotherapy in a Chinese population with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Curr Med Res Opin, 2017, 33(2): 359-369.
48.	Nian H, Wan X, Ma J, et al. Economic evaluation of dapagliflozin versus metformin in Chinese patients whose diabetes is inadequately controlled with diet and exercise. Cost Eff Resour Alloc, 2020, 18: 12.
49.	Gu S, Mu Y, Zhai S, et al. Cost-Effectiveness of dapagliflozin versus acarbose as a monotherapy in type 2 diabetes in China. PLoS One, 2016, 11(11): e0165629.
50.	Jiang Y, Zheng R, Sang H. Cost-effectiveness of adding SGLT2 inhibitors to standard treatment for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction patients in China. Front Pharmacol, 2021, 12: 733681.
51.	Yao Y, Zhang R, An T, et al. Cost-effectiveness of adding dapagliflozin to standard treatment for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction patients in China. ESC Heart Fail, 2020, 7(6): 3582-3592.
52.	Wang S, Peng L, Li J, et al. A trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis of erlotinib alone versus platinum-based doublet chemotherapy as first-line therapy for Eastern Asian nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer. PLoS One, 2013, 8(3): e55917.
53.	Men P, Liu T, Zhai S. Empagliflozin in type 2 diabetes mellitus patients with high cardiovascular risk: a model-based cost-utility analysis in China. Diabetes Metab Syndr Obes, 2020, 13: 2823-2831.
54.	Ramos M, Men P, Wang X, et al. Cost-effectiveness of empagliflozin in patients with type 2 diabetes and established cardiovascular disease in China. Cost Eff Resour Alloc, 2021, 19(1): 46.
55.	Salem A, Men P, Ramos M, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of empagliflozin compared with glimepiride in patients with Type 2 diabetes in China. J Comp Eff Res, 2021, 10(6): 469-480.
56.	Zhang PF, Xie D, Li Q. Adding enzalutamide to first-line treatment for metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Front Public Health, 2021, 9: 608375.
57.	Peng Z, Hou X, Huang Y, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of fruquintinib for metastatic colorectal cancer third-line treatment in China. BMC Cancer, 2020, 20(1): 990.
58.	Guan X, Li H, Xiong X, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of fruquintinib versus regorafenib as the third-line therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer in China. J Med Econ, 2021, 24(1): 339-344.
59.	Zhang PF, Xie D, Li Q. Cost-effectiveness analysis of fruquintinib as third-line treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Tumori, 2020, 106(5): 400-405.
60.	Ding H, Fang L, Xin W, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of fulvestrant versus anastrozole as first-line treatment for hormone receptor-positive advanced breast cancer. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl), 2017, 26(6): 1-17.
61.	Huang X, Weng X, Lin S, et al. Half-dose fulvestrant plus anastrozole as a first-line treatment for hormone receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer: a cost-effectiveness analysis. BMJ Open, 2020, 10(8): e036107.
62.	Hou X, Wan X, Wu B. Cost-effectiveness of canagliflozin versus dapagliflozin added to metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes in China. Front Pharmacol, 2019, 10: 480.
63.	Cai H, Xu B, Li N, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of camrelizumab versus chemotherapy as second-line treatment of advanced or metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Front Pharmacol, 2021, 12: 732912.
64.	Lin YT, Chen Y, Liu TX, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of camrelizumab immunotherapy versus docetaxel or irinotecan chemotherapy as second-line therapy for advanced or metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Cancer Manag Res, 2021, 13: 8219-8230.
65.	Qiao L, Zhou Z, Zeng X, et al. Cost-effectiveness of domestic PD-1 inhibitor camrelizumab combined with chemotherapy in the first-line treatment of advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer in China. Front Pharmacol, 2021, 12: 728440.
66.	Zhang Q, Wu P, He X, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of camrelizumab vs. placebo added to chemotherapy as first-line therapy for advanced or metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma in China. Front Oncol, 2021, 11: 790373.
67.	Xiang G, Gu L, Chen X, et al. Economic evaluation of first-line camrelizumab for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer in China. Front Public Health, 2021, 9: 743558.
68.	Chen R, Wu B. Cost-effectiveness of intravitreal conbercept versus other treatments for wet age-related macular degeneration. Ann Transl Med, 2020, 8(15): 939.
69.	Cui Z, Zhou W, Chang Q, et al. Cost-effectiveness of conbercept vs. ranibizumab for age-related macular degeneration, diabetic macular edema, and pathological myopia:population-based cohort study and Markov model. Front Med (Lausanne), 2021, 8: 750132.
70.	Huang M, Tian Y, He M, et al. Crizotinib versus chemotherapy: a real-world cost-effectiveness study in China. J Comp Eff Res, 2020, 9(2): 93-102.
71.	Chen GF, Wei L, Chen J, et al. Will sofosbuvir/ledipasvir (harvoni) be cost-effective and affordable for Chinese patients infected with hepatitis C virus. An economic analysis using real-world data. PLoS One, 2016, 11(6): e0155934.
72.	Zhang PF, Xie D, Wen F, et al. Lenalidomide plus rituximab vs. rituximab alone in relapsed or refractory indolent lymphoma:A cost-effectiveness analysis. Cancer Med, 2020, 9(15): 5312-5319.
73.	Zeng F, Wang M, Zhang D. Cost-effectiveness analysis of 5% lidocaine-medicated plaster compared with pregabalin for the treatment of post-herpetic neuralgia in China. Ann Palliat Med, 2021, 10(4): 4493-4501.
74.	Gao L, Zhao FL, Li SC. Cost-utility analysis of liraglutide versus glimepiride as add-on to metformin in type 2 diabetes patients in China. Int J Technol Assess Health Care, 2012, 28(4): 436-444.
75.	Zhang X, Liu S, Li Y, et al. Long-term effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of metformin combined with liraglutide or exenatide for type 2 diabetes mellitus based on the CORE diabetes model study. PLoS One, 2016, 11(6): e0156393.
76.	Cai H, Zhang L, Li N, et al. Lenvatinib versus sorafenib for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: a cost-effectiveness analysis. J Comp Eff Res, 2020, 9(8): 553-562.
77.	Li N, Zheng B, Cai HF, et al. Cost effectiveness of imatinib, dasatinib, and nilotinib as first-line treatment for chronic-phase chronic myeloid leukemia in China. Clin Drug Investig, 2018, 38(1): 79-86.
78.	Wu B, Ye M, Chen H, et al. Costs of trastuzumab in combination with chemotherapy for HER2-positive advanced gastric or gastroesophageal junction cancer: an economic evaluation in the Chinese context. Clin Ther, 2012, 34(2): 468-479.
79.	Peng Y, Ma F, Tan C, et al. Model-based economic evaluation of ceritinib and platinum-based chemotherapy as first-line treatments for advanced non-small cell lung cancer in China. Adv Ther, 2019, 36(11): 3047-3058.
80.	Li H, Lai L, Wu B. Cost effectiveness of ceritinib and alectinib versus crizotinib in first-line anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. Clin Drug Investig, 2020, 40(2): 183-189.
81.	Liu M, Zhang L, Huang Q, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of ceritinib and alectinib versus crizotinib in the treatment of anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Cancer Manag Res, 2019, 11: 9195-9202.
82.	Yang L, Chuen Tan S, Chen C, et al. Economic evaluation of sevelamer versus calcium-based binders in treating hyperphosphatemia among patients with end-stage renal disease in China. Clin Ther, 2016, 38(11): 2459-2467.
83.	Zhang P, Yang Y, Wen F, et al. Cost-effectiveness of sorafenib as a first-line treatment for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol, 2015, 27(7): 853-859.
84.	Chen S, Peng Z, Wei M, et al. Sorafenib versus transarterial chemoembolization for advanced-stage hepatocellular carcinoma: a cost-effectiveness analysis. BMC Cancer, 2018, 18(1): 392.
85.	Zhao RC, Zhou J, Wei YG, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of transcatheter arterial chemoembolization with or without sorafenib for the treatment of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatobiliary Pancreat Dis Int, 2017, 16(5): 493-498.
86.	Wei X, Zhao J, Yang L. Cost-effectiveness of new antiviral treatments for non-genotype 1 hepatitis C virus infection in China: a societal perspective. BMJ Glob Health, 2020, 5(11): e003194.
87.	Xu Y, Mao N, Chirikov V, et al. Cost-effectiveness of teriflunomide compared to interferon beta-1b for relapsing multiple sclerosis patients in China. Clin Drug Investig, 2019, 39(3): 331-340.
88.	Tian L, Xiong X, Guo Q, et al. Cost-effectiveness of tofacitinib for patients with moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis in China. Pharmacoeconomics, 2020, 38(12): 1345-1358.
89.	Zhou T, Sheng Y, Guan H. Cost-effectiveness of vedolizumab in the treatment of moderate-to-severe Crohn's disease in China. Adv Ther, 2021, 38(8): 4233-4245.
90.	Zhou T, Sheng Y, Guan H, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of vedolizumab compared with infliximab in anti-tnf-α-naïve patients with moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis in China. Front Public Health, 2021, 9: 704889.
91.	Wu B, Yao Y, Zhang K, et al. RAS testing and cetuximab treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer: a cost-effectiveness analysis in a setting with limited health resources. Oncotarget, 2017, 8(41): 71164-71172.
92.	Han J, Xiao D, Tan C, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of first-line FOLFIRI combined with cetuximab or bevacizumab in patients with RAS wild-type left-sided metastatic colorectal cancer. Cancer Control, 2020, 27(1): 1073274820902271.
93.	Bai L, Zhang P, Zhou K, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of first-line cetuximab plus leucovorin, fluorouracil, and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX-4) versus FOLFOX-4 in patients with RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer. Cancer Manag Res, 2019, 11: 10419-10426.
94.	Wang H, Huang L, Gao P, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of cetuximab combined with chemotherapy as a first-line treatment for patients with RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer based on the TAILOR trial. BMJ Open, 2020, 10(2): e030738.
95.	Lang Y, Dong D. Cetuximab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone in recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Cancer Manag Res, 2020, 12: 11383-11390.
96.	Cai H, Zhang L, Li N, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis on binary/triple therapy on the basis of ixazomib or bortezomib for refractory or relapsed multiple myeloma. Leuk Lymphoma, 2019, 60(12): 2951-2959.
97.	Wu B, Wilson A, Wang FF, et al. Cost effectiveness of different treatment strategies in the treatment of patients with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis in china. PLoS One, 2012, 7(10): e47373.
98.	Shi JH, Luo L, Chen XL, et al. Real-world cost-effectiveness associated with infliximab maintenance therapy for moderate to severe Crohn's disease in China. World J Gastroenterol, 2020, 26(41): 6455-6474.
99.	Li J, Wen Z, Cai A, et al. Real-world cost-effectiveness of infliximab for moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis in a medium-sized city of China. J Comp Eff Res, 2017, 6(3): 205-218.
100.	Rui M, Wang Y, Fei Z, et al. Economic evaluation of rituximab + recombinant human thrombopoietin vs. rituximab for the treatment of second-line idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura in China. Front Med (Lausanne), 2021, 8: 657539.
101.	Wu Q, Wang X, Zhang M, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of bevacizumab plus paclitaxel versus bevacizumab plus capecitabine for HER2-negative locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer. Oncol Res Treat, 2020, 43(4): 153-159.
102.	郭婉婕, 陈文东, 官海静, 等. 注射用紫杉醇(白蛋白结合型)治疗转移性乳腺癌的成本-效用分析. 中国药物经济学, 2019, 14(4): 13-23.
103.	陶立波, 王芳旭. 医保准入后德谷门冬双胰岛素对比甘精胰岛素治疗口服降糖药控制不佳的中国2型糖尿病患者的成本-效果. 药品评价, 2021, 18(4): 193-196.
104.	王芳旭, 张磊, 陶立波. 德谷门冬双胰岛素对比甘精胰岛素治疗口服降糖药控制不佳的中国2型糖尿病患者的成本-效果. 中国药物经济学, 2020, 15(7): 24-30.
105.	张晋, 任立红, 刘冬, 等. 安罗替尼治疗晚期非小细胞肺癌的成本效果分析. 中国新药与临床杂志, 2020, 39(6): 380-384.
106.	丁海樱, 孔思思, 孙娇, 等. 盐酸安罗替尼用于晚期非小细胞肺癌治疗的成本效用分析. 卫生经济研究, 2020, 37(5): 19-22.
107.	占美, 吴斌, 吴逢波, 等. 安罗替尼治疗晚期非小细胞肺癌的成本-效果分析. 医药导报, 2020, 39(2): 172-175.
108.	管欣, 张瑶, 李洪超. 注射用尤瑞克林与丁苯酞氯化钠注射液治疗轻-中度急性缺血性脑卒中的成本效用分析. 中国新药杂志, 2020, 29(6): 715-720.
109.	张力, 周彩存, 赵军, 等. 阿来替尼一线治疗中国ALK阳性晚期或转移性非小细胞肺癌的成本效果研究. 中国医疗保险, 2019, (12): 56-62.
110.	何江江, 张崖冰, 高润霖, 等. 替格瑞洛与氯吡格雷治疗急性冠脉综合征的药物经济学分析. 中国药物经济学, 2013, (3): 27-32.
111.	刘家稳, 万小敏, 刘健, 等. 标准一线化疗增加西妥昔单抗在晚期非小细胞肺癌患者中的成本-效果分析. 中南药学, 2013, 11(10): 778-780+788.
112.	官海静, 刘国恩, 盛亚楠, 等. 奥希替尼治疗非小细胞肺癌的成本效果研究. 中国医疗保险, 2018, 5(5): 47-54.
113.	岳毅桦, 犹月, 彭元求. 奥希替尼一线治疗EGFR突变局部晚期或转移性非小细胞肺癌的成本效果分析. 中国新药与临床杂志, 2021, 40(3): 205-209.
114.	康朔, 贾海红, 刘国强. 奥希替尼一线治疗EGFR突变阳性的局部晚期或转移性非小细胞肺癌的成本-效用分析. 中国药房, 2021, 32(12): 1492-1496.
115.	肖强, 刘红艳. 利拉鲁肽和西格列汀在治疗2型糖尿病中的长期益处对比. 中国医院药学杂志, 2018, 38(11): 1207-1211,1235.
116.	卞元清, 王瑞, 潘巍, 等. 伊沙佐米治疗复发/难治性骨髓瘤的成本-效用分析. 中国药物经济学, 2021, 16(8): 11-16.
117.	陈平钰, 马爱霞. 艾尔巴韦/格拉瑞韦片治疗慢性丙型肝炎的成本效果分析. 中国新药杂志, 2020, 29(4): 470-476.
118.	姚佑楠, 张荣成, 安涛, 等. 沙库巴曲缬沙坦和依那普利在急性失代偿性射血分数减低型心力衰竭住院患者中长期使用的成本-效用. 中国药物经济学, 2020, 15(9): 5-11,16.
119.	王皓, 曾晨欣, 李俐, 等. 奥希替尼和吉非替尼/厄洛替尼一线治疗EGFR突变阳性非小细胞肺癌的成本-效果分析. 医药导报, 2020, 39(12): 1689-1696.
120.	施霞, 朱秋燕. 阿法替尼和吉非替尼一线治疗EGFR突变阳性非小细胞肺癌的成本效用分析. 中国现代应用药学, 2019, 36(21): 2701-2706.
121.	陈平钰, 谢青. 艾尔巴韦格拉瑞韦与索磷布韦维帕他韦治疗丙型肝炎的成本-效果分析. 中国药物经济学, 2019, 14(7): 14-18,26.
122.	张龙凤, 黄棋舒, 邱玲玲, 等. 塞瑞替尼与阿来替尼一线治疗ALK阳性晚期非小细胞肺癌的成本效用分析. 海峡药学, 2019, 31(8): 86-89.
123.	范长生, 吴久鸿. 波生坦片治疗肺动脉高压成本-效用分析. 药品评价, 2016, 13(8): 13-19,62.
124.	胡春阳, 韩晟, 刘方, 等. 利拉鲁肽与罗格列酮、格列美脲、艾塞那肽和甘精胰岛素治疗2型糖尿病患者的短期成本-效果比较. 中国药物经济学, 2014, 9(4): 9-13.
125.	Shi G, Park SH, Ren H, et al. Cost analysis for different sequential treatment regimens for metastatic renal cell carcinoma in China. J Med Econ, 2018, 21(12): 1150-1158.
126.	Lu X, Smare C, Kambili C, et al. Health outcomes of bedaquiline in the treatment of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis in selected high burden countries. BMC Health Serv Res, 2017, 17(1): 87.
127.	Zhang D, Li X, Ding J, et al. Value of perampanel as adjunctive treatment for partial-onset seizures in epilepsy: cost-effectiveness and budget impact analysis. front public health, 2021, 9: 670108.
128.	Zhou X, Xia J, Mao J, et al. Real-world outcome and healthcare costs of relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma: A retrospective analysis from the Chinese experience. Hematology, 2016, 21(5): 280-286.
129.	Tang L, Yang XF, Qiao M, et al. Posaconazole vs. voriconazole in the prevention of invasive fungal diseases in patients with haematological malignancies:A retrospective study. J Mycol Med, 2018, 28(2): 379-383.
130.	刘国强, 杨警囡. 司维拉姆治疗慢性肾脏病高磷血症的药物经济学系统评价. 中国药物经济学, 2021, 16(6): 26-30,38.
131.	米雪, 苏雪龙, 孙维红, 等. 奥希替尼治疗晚期非小细胞肺癌的药物经济学系统评价. 中国药房, 2021, 32(6): 713-719.
132.	陈幸, 王晓莉. 帕罗西汀对比度洛西汀治疗抑郁症的系统评价及药物经济学分析. 中国医药导报, 2021, 18(9): 140-144.
133.	杨璐, 孙路路, 王淑梅. 阿卡波糖对比二甲双胍治疗2型糖尿病疗效与安全性的系统评价及药物经济学分析. 中国药房, 2015, 26(24): 3371-3374.
134.	丁海樱, 童莹慧, 辛文秀, 等. 贝伐珠单抗用于卵巢癌治疗的经济学研究综述. 中国现代应用药学, 2017, 34(11): 1621-1627.
135.	孙艳坤, 刘国恩. 贝伐珠单抗治疗转移性结直肠癌的效果与成本研究综述. 中国药物经济学, 2014, 9(1): 9-15.
136.	刘洁, 万楚川, 陈磊, 等. 丹参酮Ⅱ_(A)磺酸钠治疗冠心病心绞痛的药物经济学评价. 中国药房, 2020, 31(18): 2240-2246.
137.	万小敏, 彭六保, 曾小慧, 等. 甘草酸单铵半胱氨酸改善病毒性肝炎患者肝功能异常的药物经济学评价. 中国药物经济学, 2020, 15(7): 5-9,30.
138.	陈平钰, 李洪超, 马爱霞. 艾尔巴韦/格拉瑞韦片治疗基因1b型慢性丙型肝炎的经济学评价. 中国循证医学杂志, 2018, 18(12): 1352-1358.
139.	Xie F, Zhou T. Industry sponsorship bias in cost effectiveness analysis: registry based analysis. BMJ, 2022, 377: e069573.
140.	颜建周, 董心月, 马旭锋, 等. 英国价值定价理念对我国医保药品报销政策的启示. 中国卫生政策研究, 2020, 13(1): 62-69.
141.	Claxton K, Sculpher M, Carroll S. Value-based pricing for pharmaceuticals: its role, specification and prospects in a newly devolved NHS. York, UK:Centre for Health Economics, University of York, 2011: 60.
142.	Department of Health and Social Care. Pharmaceutical price regulation scheme 2014, 2013-12-03. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/pharmaceutical-price-regulation-scheme-2014.
143.	张心悦, 丁锦希. 英国肿瘤药物的卫生技术评估评价研究及其启示. 中国药物经济学, 2021, 16(5): 27-32.
144.	董心月, 张伶俐, 邵蓉. 英国价值定价理念与药品补偿制度的衔接及启示. 卫生经济研究, 2018, (10): 54-57.

1. 李凯悦, 刘辉, 蒋倩. 历年国家医保谈判药品概况与分析—抗肿瘤药品专题. 肿瘤药学, 2021, 11(2): 229-235.
2. Hill-McManus D, Marshall S, Liu J, et al. Linked pharmacometric-pharmacoeconomic modeling and simulation in clinical drug development. Clin Pharmacol Ther, 2021, 110(1): 49-63.
3. Barnieh L, Manns B, Harris A, et al. A synthesis of drug reimbursement decision-making processes in organisation for economic co-operation and development countries. Value Health, 2014, 17(1): 98-108.
4. Commonwealth Department of Human Services and Health. Guidelines for the pharmaceutical industry on preparation of submissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee: including major submissions involving economic analyses. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service, 1995.
5. Cairns J. Providing guidance to the NHS: The Scottish medicines consortium and the national institute for clinical excellence compared. Health Policy, 2006, 76(2): 134-143.
6. Canadian Coordinating Ofﬁce for Health Technology Assessment. Guidelines for economic evaluation of pharmacoeconomics. Ottawa: CCOHTA, 1994.
7. Ofﬁce of Technology Assessment. Health care technology and its assessment in eight countries. Washington (DC): US Congress, Ofﬁce of Technology Assessment, 1995.
8. Drummond M. Pharmacoeconomics: friend or foe. Ann Rheum Dis, 2006, 65(Suppl 3): iii44-iii47.
9. 国务院办公厅. 关于印发“十三五”深化医药卫生体制改革规划的通知, 2016-12-27. Available at: http://www.gov.cn/zhengce/content/2017-01/09/content_5158053.htm.
10. 国务院办公厅. 关于改革完善医疗卫生行业综合监管制度的指导意见. 中国卫生监督杂志, 2018, 25(5): 414-418.
11. 国家医保局. 2019年国家医保药品目录调整工作方案, 2019-04-17. Available at: http://www.gov.cn/xinwen/2019-04/19/content_5384349.htm.
12. 国家医保局. 基本医疗保险用药管理暂行办法, 2020-07-30. Available at: http://www.gov.cn/zhengce/zhengceku/2020-08/04/content_5532409.htm.
13. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ, 2009, 339: b2535.
14. Husereau D, Drummond M, Augustovski F, et al. Consolidated health economic evaluation reporting standards 2022 (cheers 2022) statement: updated reporting guidance for health economic evaluations. Value Health, 2022, 25(1): 3-9.
15. Ming J, Zhang Y, Xu X, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of intravitreal aflibercept in the treatment of diabetic macular edema in China. J Comp Eff Res, 2020, 9(3): 161-175.
16. Gu X, Zhang Q, Chu YB, et al. Cost-effectiveness of afatinib, gefitinib, erlotinib and pemetrexed-based chemotherapy as first-line treatments for advanced non-small cell lung cancer in China. Lung Cancer, 2019, 127: 84-89.
17. Zhu J, He W, Ye M, et al. Cost-effectiveness of afatinib and erlotinib as second-line treatments for advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the lung. Future Oncol, 2018, 14(27): 2833-2840.
18. Wang H, Zeng C, Li X, et al. Cost-utility of afatinib and gefitinib as first-line treatment for EGFR-mutated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. Future Oncol, 2019, 15(2): 181-191.
19. Ou HT, Chen YT, Liu YM, et al. Comparative cost-effectiveness of metformin-based dual therapies associated with risk of cardiovascular diseases among Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes: Evidence from a population-based national cohort in Taiwan. Diabetes Res Clin Pract, 2016, 116: 14-25.
20. Guan H, Sheng Y, Guo W, et al. Cost-effectiveness of alectinib for patients with untreated ALK-positive non-small cell lung cancer in China. Adv Ther, 2019, 36(5): 1114-1125.
21. Bai Y, Xu Y, Wu B. Cost-effectiveness and budget impact analysis of apatinib for advanced metastatic gastric cancer from the perspective of health insurance system. Gastroenterol Res Pract, 2017, 2017: 2816737.
22. Chen HD, Zhou J, Wen F, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of apatinib treatment for chemotherapy-refractory advanced gastric cancer. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol, 2017, 143(2): 361-368.
23. Xuan JW, Song RL, Xu GX, et al. Modeling the cost-effectiveness of ilaprazole versus omeprazole for the treatment of newly diagnosed duodenal ulcer patients in China. J Med Econ, 2016, 19(11): 1056-1060.
24. Deng J, Gu S, Shao H, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of exenatide twice daily (BID) vs. insulin glargine once daily (QD) as add-on therapy in Chinese patients with Type 2 diabetes mellitus inadequately controlled by oral therapies. J Med Econ, 2015, 18(11): 974-989.
25. Gu S, Wang X, Qiao Q, et al. Cost-effectiveness of exenatide twice daily vs. insulin glargine as add-on therapy to oral antidiabetic agents in patients with type 2 diabetes in China. Diabetes Obes Metab, 2017, 19(12): 1688-1697.
26. Gong J, Wan Q, Shang J, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of anlotinib as third- or further-line treatment for relapsed small cell lung cancer (SCLC) in China. Adv Ther, 2021, 38(10): 5116-5126.
27. Zhan M, Zheng H, Yang Y, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of maintenance olaparib in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer and a germline BRCA1/2 mutation based on the POLO trial. Cancer Manag Res, 2020, 12: 12919-12926.
28. Li N, Zheng H, Huang Y, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of olaparib maintenance treatment for germline brca-mutated metastatic pancreatic cancer. Front Pharmacol, 2021, 12: 632818.
29. Zhou H, Lu Y, Wu B, et al. Cost-effectiveness of omalizumab for the treatment of inadequately controlled severe allergic asthma in Chinese children. J Asthma, 2020, 57(1): 87-94.
30. Li W, Qian L, Li W, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of different sequences of osimertinib administration for epidermal growth factor receptor-mutated non-small-cell lung cancer. Exp Ther Med, 2021, 21(4): 343.
31. Li WQ, Li LY, Chai J, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of first-line treatments for advanced epidermal growth factor receptor-mutant non-small cell lung cancer patients. Cancer Med, 2021, 10(6): 1964-1974.
32. Cai H, Zhang L, Li N, et al. Cost-effectiveness of osimertinib as first-line treatment and sequential therapy for EGFR mutation-positive non-small cell lung cancer in China. Clin Ther, 2019, 41(2): 280-290.
33. Wu B, Gu X, Zhang Q. Cost-effectiveness of osimertinib for EGFR mutation-positive non-small cell lung cancer after progression following first-line EGFR TKI therapy. J Thorac Oncol, 2018, 13(2): 184-193.
34. Rui M, Li H. Cost-effectiveness of osimertinib vs. docetaxel-bevacizumab in third-line treatment in EGFR T790M resistance mutation advanced non-small cell lung cancer in China. Clin Ther, 2020, 42(11): 2159-2170.
35. Guan H, Liu G, Xie F, et al. Cost-effectiveness of osimertinib as a second-line treatment in patients with EGFR-mutated advanced non-small cell lung cancer in China. Clin Ther, 2019, 41(11): 2308-2320.
36. Luo S, Weng X, Lin S, et al. Evaluation of osimertinib for advanced non-small cell lung cancer with leptomeningeal metastases: a cost-effectiveness and budget impact analysis. Int J Clin Pharm, 2022, 44(1): 192-200.
37. Wu B, Gu X, Zhang Q, et al. Cost-effectiveness of osimertinib in treating newly diagnosed, advanced EGFR-mutation-positive non-small cell lung cancer. Oncologist, 2019, 24(3): 349-357.
38. Li S, Li J, Peng L, et al. Cost-effectiveness of baricitinib for patients with moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis after methotrexate failed in China. Rheumatol Ther, 2021, 8(2): 863-876.
39. Fan Q, Ming WK, Yip WY, et al. Cost-effectiveness of bedaquiline or delamanid plus background regimen for multidrug-resistant tuberculosis in a high-income intermediate burden city of China. Int J Infect Dis, 2019, 78: 44-49.
40. Zheng H, Xie L, Zhan M, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of the addition of bevacizumab to chemotherapy as induction and maintenance therapy for metastatic non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer. Clin Transl Oncol, 2018, 20(3): 286-293.
41. Zhan M, Zheng H, Xu T, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of additional bevacizumab to pemetrexed plus cisplatin for malignant pleural mesothelioma based on the MAPS trial. Lung Cancer, 2017, 110: 1-6.
42. Wu B, Li J, Lin H, et al. Different strategies for the treatment of age-related macular degeneration in China: an economic evaluation. J Ophthalmol, 2016, 2016: 7689862.
43. Li X, Li W, Hou L. A trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis of bevacizumab and chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone for advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer in China. Value Health Reg Issues, 2019, 18: 1-7.
44. Zhang PF, Wen F, Zhou J, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of capecitabine plus bevacizumab versus capecitabine alone in elderly patients with previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer from Chinese societal perspective. Clin Transl Oncol, 2020, 22(1): 103-110.
45. Chen Z, Zhan M, Tian F, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of the addition of bevacizumab to temozolomide therapy for the treatment of unresected glioblastoma. Oncol Lett, 2020, 19(1): 424-430.
46. Cai X, Shi L, Yang W, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of dapagliflozin treatment versus metformin treatment in Chinese population with type 2 diabetes. J Med Econ, 2019, 22(4): 336-343.
47. Shao H, Zhai S, Zou D, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of dapagliflozin versus glimepiride as monotherapy in a Chinese population with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Curr Med Res Opin, 2017, 33(2): 359-369.
48. Nian H, Wan X, Ma J, et al. Economic evaluation of dapagliflozin versus metformin in Chinese patients whose diabetes is inadequately controlled with diet and exercise. Cost Eff Resour Alloc, 2020, 18: 12.
49. Gu S, Mu Y, Zhai S, et al. Cost-Effectiveness of dapagliflozin versus acarbose as a monotherapy in type 2 diabetes in China. PLoS One, 2016, 11(11): e0165629.
50. Jiang Y, Zheng R, Sang H. Cost-effectiveness of adding SGLT2 inhibitors to standard treatment for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction patients in China. Front Pharmacol, 2021, 12: 733681.
51. Yao Y, Zhang R, An T, et al. Cost-effectiveness of adding dapagliflozin to standard treatment for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction patients in China. ESC Heart Fail, 2020, 7(6): 3582-3592.
52. Wang S, Peng L, Li J, et al. A trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis of erlotinib alone versus platinum-based doublet chemotherapy as first-line therapy for Eastern Asian nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer. PLoS One, 2013, 8(3): e55917.
53. Men P, Liu T, Zhai S. Empagliflozin in type 2 diabetes mellitus patients with high cardiovascular risk: a model-based cost-utility analysis in China. Diabetes Metab Syndr Obes, 2020, 13: 2823-2831.
54. Ramos M, Men P, Wang X, et al. Cost-effectiveness of empagliflozin in patients with type 2 diabetes and established cardiovascular disease in China. Cost Eff Resour Alloc, 2021, 19(1): 46.
55. Salem A, Men P, Ramos M, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of empagliflozin compared with glimepiride in patients with Type 2 diabetes in China. J Comp Eff Res, 2021, 10(6): 469-480.
56. Zhang PF, Xie D, Li Q. Adding enzalutamide to first-line treatment for metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Front Public Health, 2021, 9: 608375.
57. Peng Z, Hou X, Huang Y, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of fruquintinib for metastatic colorectal cancer third-line treatment in China. BMC Cancer, 2020, 20(1): 990.
58. Guan X, Li H, Xiong X, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of fruquintinib versus regorafenib as the third-line therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer in China. J Med Econ, 2021, 24(1): 339-344.
59. Zhang PF, Xie D, Li Q. Cost-effectiveness analysis of fruquintinib as third-line treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Tumori, 2020, 106(5): 400-405.
60. Ding H, Fang L, Xin W, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of fulvestrant versus anastrozole as first-line treatment for hormone receptor-positive advanced breast cancer. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl), 2017, 26(6): 1-17.
61. Huang X, Weng X, Lin S, et al. Half-dose fulvestrant plus anastrozole as a first-line treatment for hormone receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer: a cost-effectiveness analysis. BMJ Open, 2020, 10(8): e036107.
62. Hou X, Wan X, Wu B. Cost-effectiveness of canagliflozin versus dapagliflozin added to metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes in China. Front Pharmacol, 2019, 10: 480.
63. Cai H, Xu B, Li N, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of camrelizumab versus chemotherapy as second-line treatment of advanced or metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Front Pharmacol, 2021, 12: 732912.
64. Lin YT, Chen Y, Liu TX, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of camrelizumab immunotherapy versus docetaxel or irinotecan chemotherapy as second-line therapy for advanced or metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Cancer Manag Res, 2021, 13: 8219-8230.
65. Qiao L, Zhou Z, Zeng X, et al. Cost-effectiveness of domestic PD-1 inhibitor camrelizumab combined with chemotherapy in the first-line treatment of advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer in China. Front Pharmacol, 2021, 12: 728440.
66. Zhang Q, Wu P, He X, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of camrelizumab vs. placebo added to chemotherapy as first-line therapy for advanced or metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma in China. Front Oncol, 2021, 11: 790373.
67. Xiang G, Gu L, Chen X, et al. Economic evaluation of first-line camrelizumab for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer in China. Front Public Health, 2021, 9: 743558.
68. Chen R, Wu B. Cost-effectiveness of intravitreal conbercept versus other treatments for wet age-related macular degeneration. Ann Transl Med, 2020, 8(15): 939.
69. Cui Z, Zhou W, Chang Q, et al. Cost-effectiveness of conbercept vs. ranibizumab for age-related macular degeneration, diabetic macular edema, and pathological myopia:population-based cohort study and Markov model. Front Med (Lausanne), 2021, 8: 750132.
70. Huang M, Tian Y, He M, et al. Crizotinib versus chemotherapy: a real-world cost-effectiveness study in China. J Comp Eff Res, 2020, 9(2): 93-102.
71. Chen GF, Wei L, Chen J, et al. Will sofosbuvir/ledipasvir (harvoni) be cost-effective and affordable for Chinese patients infected with hepatitis C virus. An economic analysis using real-world data. PLoS One, 2016, 11(6): e0155934.
72. Zhang PF, Xie D, Wen F, et al. Lenalidomide plus rituximab vs. rituximab alone in relapsed or refractory indolent lymphoma:A cost-effectiveness analysis. Cancer Med, 2020, 9(15): 5312-5319.
73. Zeng F, Wang M, Zhang D. Cost-effectiveness analysis of 5% lidocaine-medicated plaster compared with pregabalin for the treatment of post-herpetic neuralgia in China. Ann Palliat Med, 2021, 10(4): 4493-4501.
74. Gao L, Zhao FL, Li SC. Cost-utility analysis of liraglutide versus glimepiride as add-on to metformin in type 2 diabetes patients in China. Int J Technol Assess Health Care, 2012, 28(4): 436-444.
75. Zhang X, Liu S, Li Y, et al. Long-term effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of metformin combined with liraglutide or exenatide for type 2 diabetes mellitus based on the CORE diabetes model study. PLoS One, 2016, 11(6): e0156393.
76. Cai H, Zhang L, Li N, et al. Lenvatinib versus sorafenib for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: a cost-effectiveness analysis. J Comp Eff Res, 2020, 9(8): 553-562.
77. Li N, Zheng B, Cai HF, et al. Cost effectiveness of imatinib, dasatinib, and nilotinib as first-line treatment for chronic-phase chronic myeloid leukemia in China. Clin Drug Investig, 2018, 38(1): 79-86.
78. Wu B, Ye M, Chen H, et al. Costs of trastuzumab in combination with chemotherapy for HER2-positive advanced gastric or gastroesophageal junction cancer: an economic evaluation in the Chinese context. Clin Ther, 2012, 34(2): 468-479.
79. Peng Y, Ma F, Tan C, et al. Model-based economic evaluation of ceritinib and platinum-based chemotherapy as first-line treatments for advanced non-small cell lung cancer in China. Adv Ther, 2019, 36(11): 3047-3058.
80. Li H, Lai L, Wu B. Cost effectiveness of ceritinib and alectinib versus crizotinib in first-line anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. Clin Drug Investig, 2020, 40(2): 183-189.
81. Liu M, Zhang L, Huang Q, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of ceritinib and alectinib versus crizotinib in the treatment of anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Cancer Manag Res, 2019, 11: 9195-9202.
82. Yang L, Chuen Tan S, Chen C, et al. Economic evaluation of sevelamer versus calcium-based binders in treating hyperphosphatemia among patients with end-stage renal disease in China. Clin Ther, 2016, 38(11): 2459-2467.
83. Zhang P, Yang Y, Wen F, et al. Cost-effectiveness of sorafenib as a first-line treatment for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol, 2015, 27(7): 853-859.
84. Chen S, Peng Z, Wei M, et al. Sorafenib versus transarterial chemoembolization for advanced-stage hepatocellular carcinoma: a cost-effectiveness analysis. BMC Cancer, 2018, 18(1): 392.
85. Zhao RC, Zhou J, Wei YG, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of transcatheter arterial chemoembolization with or without sorafenib for the treatment of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatobiliary Pancreat Dis Int, 2017, 16(5): 493-498.
86. Wei X, Zhao J, Yang L. Cost-effectiveness of new antiviral treatments for non-genotype 1 hepatitis C virus infection in China: a societal perspective. BMJ Glob Health, 2020, 5(11): e003194.
87. Xu Y, Mao N, Chirikov V, et al. Cost-effectiveness of teriflunomide compared to interferon beta-1b for relapsing multiple sclerosis patients in China. Clin Drug Investig, 2019, 39(3): 331-340.
88. Tian L, Xiong X, Guo Q, et al. Cost-effectiveness of tofacitinib for patients with moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis in China. Pharmacoeconomics, 2020, 38(12): 1345-1358.
89. Zhou T, Sheng Y, Guan H. Cost-effectiveness of vedolizumab in the treatment of moderate-to-severe Crohn's disease in China. Adv Ther, 2021, 38(8): 4233-4245.
90. Zhou T, Sheng Y, Guan H, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of vedolizumab compared with infliximab in anti-tnf-α-naïve patients with moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis in China. Front Public Health, 2021, 9: 704889.
91. Wu B, Yao Y, Zhang K, et al. RAS testing and cetuximab treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer: a cost-effectiveness analysis in a setting with limited health resources. Oncotarget, 2017, 8(41): 71164-71172.
92. Han J, Xiao D, Tan C, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of first-line FOLFIRI combined with cetuximab or bevacizumab in patients with RAS wild-type left-sided metastatic colorectal cancer. Cancer Control, 2020, 27(1): 1073274820902271.
93. Bai L, Zhang P, Zhou K, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of first-line cetuximab plus leucovorin, fluorouracil, and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX-4) versus FOLFOX-4 in patients with RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer. Cancer Manag Res, 2019, 11: 10419-10426.
94. Wang H, Huang L, Gao P, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of cetuximab combined with chemotherapy as a first-line treatment for patients with RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer based on the TAILOR trial. BMJ Open, 2020, 10(2): e030738.
95. Lang Y, Dong D. Cetuximab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone in recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Cancer Manag Res, 2020, 12: 11383-11390.
96. Cai H, Zhang L, Li N, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis on binary/triple therapy on the basis of ixazomib or bortezomib for refractory or relapsed multiple myeloma. Leuk Lymphoma, 2019, 60(12): 2951-2959.
97. Wu B, Wilson A, Wang FF, et al. Cost effectiveness of different treatment strategies in the treatment of patients with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis in china. PLoS One, 2012, 7(10): e47373.
98. Shi JH, Luo L, Chen XL, et al. Real-world cost-effectiveness associated with infliximab maintenance therapy for moderate to severe Crohn's disease in China. World J Gastroenterol, 2020, 26(41): 6455-6474.
99. Li J, Wen Z, Cai A, et al. Real-world cost-effectiveness of infliximab for moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis in a medium-sized city of China. J Comp Eff Res, 2017, 6(3): 205-218.
100. Rui M, Wang Y, Fei Z, et al. Economic evaluation of rituximab + recombinant human thrombopoietin vs. rituximab for the treatment of second-line idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura in China. Front Med (Lausanne), 2021, 8: 657539.
101. Wu Q, Wang X, Zhang M, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of bevacizumab plus paclitaxel versus bevacizumab plus capecitabine for HER2-negative locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer. Oncol Res Treat, 2020, 43(4): 153-159.
102. 郭婉婕, 陈文东, 官海静, 等. 注射用紫杉醇(白蛋白结合型)治疗转移性乳腺癌的成本-效用分析. 中国药物经济学, 2019, 14(4): 13-23.
103. 陶立波, 王芳旭. 医保准入后德谷门冬双胰岛素对比甘精胰岛素治疗口服降糖药控制不佳的中国2型糖尿病患者的成本-效果. 药品评价, 2021, 18(4): 193-196.
104. 王芳旭, 张磊, 陶立波. 德谷门冬双胰岛素对比甘精胰岛素治疗口服降糖药控制不佳的中国2型糖尿病患者的成本-效果. 中国药物经济学, 2020, 15(7): 24-30.
105. 张晋, 任立红, 刘冬, 等. 安罗替尼治疗晚期非小细胞肺癌的成本效果分析. 中国新药与临床杂志, 2020, 39(6): 380-384.
106. 丁海樱, 孔思思, 孙娇, 等. 盐酸安罗替尼用于晚期非小细胞肺癌治疗的成本效用分析. 卫生经济研究, 2020, 37(5): 19-22.
107. 占美, 吴斌, 吴逢波, 等. 安罗替尼治疗晚期非小细胞肺癌的成本-效果分析. 医药导报, 2020, 39(2): 172-175.
108. 管欣, 张瑶, 李洪超. 注射用尤瑞克林与丁苯酞氯化钠注射液治疗轻-中度急性缺血性脑卒中的成本效用分析. 中国新药杂志, 2020, 29(6): 715-720.
109. 张力, 周彩存, 赵军, 等. 阿来替尼一线治疗中国ALK阳性晚期或转移性非小细胞肺癌的成本效果研究. 中国医疗保险, 2019, (12): 56-62.
110. 何江江, 张崖冰, 高润霖, 等. 替格瑞洛与氯吡格雷治疗急性冠脉综合征的药物经济学分析. 中国药物经济学, 2013, (3): 27-32.
111. 刘家稳, 万小敏, 刘健, 等. 标准一线化疗增加西妥昔单抗在晚期非小细胞肺癌患者中的成本-效果分析. 中南药学, 2013, 11(10): 778-780+788.
112. 官海静, 刘国恩, 盛亚楠, 等. 奥希替尼治疗非小细胞肺癌的成本效果研究. 中国医疗保险, 2018, 5(5): 47-54.
113. 岳毅桦, 犹月, 彭元求. 奥希替尼一线治疗EGFR突变局部晚期或转移性非小细胞肺癌的成本效果分析. 中国新药与临床杂志, 2021, 40(3): 205-209.
114. 康朔, 贾海红, 刘国强. 奥希替尼一线治疗EGFR突变阳性的局部晚期或转移性非小细胞肺癌的成本-效用分析. 中国药房, 2021, 32(12): 1492-1496.
115. 肖强, 刘红艳. 利拉鲁肽和西格列汀在治疗2型糖尿病中的长期益处对比. 中国医院药学杂志, 2018, 38(11): 1207-1211,1235.
116. 卞元清, 王瑞, 潘巍, 等. 伊沙佐米治疗复发/难治性骨髓瘤的成本-效用分析. 中国药物经济学, 2021, 16(8): 11-16.
117. 陈平钰, 马爱霞. 艾尔巴韦/格拉瑞韦片治疗慢性丙型肝炎的成本效果分析. 中国新药杂志, 2020, 29(4): 470-476.
118. 姚佑楠, 张荣成, 安涛, 等. 沙库巴曲缬沙坦和依那普利在急性失代偿性射血分数减低型心力衰竭住院患者中长期使用的成本-效用. 中国药物经济学, 2020, 15(9): 5-11,16.
119. 王皓, 曾晨欣, 李俐, 等. 奥希替尼和吉非替尼/厄洛替尼一线治疗EGFR突变阳性非小细胞肺癌的成本-效果分析. 医药导报, 2020, 39(12): 1689-1696.
120. 施霞, 朱秋燕. 阿法替尼和吉非替尼一线治疗EGFR突变阳性非小细胞肺癌的成本效用分析. 中国现代应用药学, 2019, 36(21): 2701-2706.
121. 陈平钰, 谢青. 艾尔巴韦格拉瑞韦与索磷布韦维帕他韦治疗丙型肝炎的成本-效果分析. 中国药物经济学, 2019, 14(7): 14-18,26.
122. 张龙凤, 黄棋舒, 邱玲玲, 等. 塞瑞替尼与阿来替尼一线治疗ALK阳性晚期非小细胞肺癌的成本效用分析. 海峡药学, 2019, 31(8): 86-89.
123. 范长生, 吴久鸿. 波生坦片治疗肺动脉高压成本-效用分析. 药品评价, 2016, 13(8): 13-19,62.
124. 胡春阳, 韩晟, 刘方, 等. 利拉鲁肽与罗格列酮、格列美脲、艾塞那肽和甘精胰岛素治疗2型糖尿病患者的短期成本-效果比较. 中国药物经济学, 2014, 9(4): 9-13.
125. Shi G, Park SH, Ren H, et al. Cost analysis for different sequential treatment regimens for metastatic renal cell carcinoma in China. J Med Econ, 2018, 21(12): 1150-1158.
126. Lu X, Smare C, Kambili C, et al. Health outcomes of bedaquiline in the treatment of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis in selected high burden countries. BMC Health Serv Res, 2017, 17(1): 87.
127. Zhang D, Li X, Ding J, et al. Value of perampanel as adjunctive treatment for partial-onset seizures in epilepsy: cost-effectiveness and budget impact analysis. front public health, 2021, 9: 670108.
128. Zhou X, Xia J, Mao J, et al. Real-world outcome and healthcare costs of relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma: A retrospective analysis from the Chinese experience. Hematology, 2016, 21(5): 280-286.
129. Tang L, Yang XF, Qiao M, et al. Posaconazole vs. voriconazole in the prevention of invasive fungal diseases in patients with haematological malignancies:A retrospective study. J Mycol Med, 2018, 28(2): 379-383.
130. 刘国强, 杨警囡. 司维拉姆治疗慢性肾脏病高磷血症的药物经济学系统评价. 中国药物经济学, 2021, 16(6): 26-30,38.
131. 米雪, 苏雪龙, 孙维红, 等. 奥希替尼治疗晚期非小细胞肺癌的药物经济学系统评价. 中国药房, 2021, 32(6): 713-719.
132. 陈幸, 王晓莉. 帕罗西汀对比度洛西汀治疗抑郁症的系统评价及药物经济学分析. 中国医药导报, 2021, 18(9): 140-144.
133. 杨璐, 孙路路, 王淑梅. 阿卡波糖对比二甲双胍治疗2型糖尿病疗效与安全性的系统评价及药物经济学分析. 中国药房, 2015, 26(24): 3371-3374.
134. 丁海樱, 童莹慧, 辛文秀, 等. 贝伐珠单抗用于卵巢癌治疗的经济学研究综述. 中国现代应用药学, 2017, 34(11): 1621-1627.
135. 孙艳坤, 刘国恩. 贝伐珠单抗治疗转移性结直肠癌的效果与成本研究综述. 中国药物经济学, 2014, 9(1): 9-15.
136. 刘洁, 万楚川, 陈磊, 等. 丹参酮Ⅱ_(A)磺酸钠治疗冠心病心绞痛的药物经济学评价. 中国药房, 2020, 31(18): 2240-2246.
137. 万小敏, 彭六保, 曾小慧, 等. 甘草酸单铵半胱氨酸改善病毒性肝炎患者肝功能异常的药物经济学评价. 中国药物经济学, 2020, 15(7): 5-9,30.
138. 陈平钰, 李洪超, 马爱霞. 艾尔巴韦/格拉瑞韦片治疗基因1b型慢性丙型肝炎的经济学评价. 中国循证医学杂志, 2018, 18(12): 1352-1358.
139. Xie F, Zhou T. Industry sponsorship bias in cost effectiveness analysis: registry based analysis. BMJ, 2022, 377: e069573.
140. 颜建周, 董心月, 马旭锋, 等. 英国价值定价理念对我国医保药品报销政策的启示. 中国卫生政策研究, 2020, 13(1): 62-69.
141. Claxton K, Sculpher M, Carroll S. Value-based pricing for pharmaceuticals: its role, specification and prospects in a newly devolved NHS. York, UK:Centre for Health Economics, University of York, 2011: 60.
142. Department of Health and Social Care. Pharmaceutical price regulation scheme 2014, 2013-12-03. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/pharmaceutical-price-regulation-scheme-2014.
143. 张心悦, 丁锦希. 英国肿瘤药物的卫生技术评估评价研究及其启示. 中国药物经济学, 2021, 16(5): 27-32.
144. 董心月, 张伶俐, 邵蓉. 英国价值定价理念与药品补偿制度的衔接及启示. 卫生经济研究, 2018, (10): 54-57.

Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine

The pharmacoeconomic analyses of the Chinese national drug negotiations: a systematic review

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Previous Article

Next Article

Format

Content