ObjectivesTo compare the common application methods of meta-analysis results used in economic evaluations so as to provide reference and suggestions for similar economic evaluations in future.MethodsFour methods were used to calculate the effectiveness deriving from meta-analysis of omeprazole and esomeprazole in the treatment of peptic ulcer, then substituted into the decision tree model to perform cost-effectiveness analysis.ResultsMethod 1 used the risk difference as the incremental effectiveness. The ICER was ￥2 420, and the equal probability point of the cost-effectiveness acceptability curve (CEAC) in the probability sensitivity analysis was approximately ￥2 600. Method 2 used the effective rate of the study group in high-quality literatures as the benchmark, calculated the effective rate of the control group according to the RR. The ICER was ￥2 016, and the equal probability point of the CEAC was approximately￥2 000. Method 3 was based on the effective rate of the control group in high-quality literatures to calculate the effective rate of the study group according to RR. The ICER was ￥2 420 and the equal probability point of the CEAC was approximately￥2 200; Method 4 used literature weights to calculate the effectiveness, the ICER is ￥2 420, and the equal probability point of the CEAC was about ￥2 400.ConclusionsThe results of the four methods share little difference, and the sensitivity analysis results show that the base case analysis results are more robust. However, in the application process, method 1 lacks specific effectiveness of the two groups and underestimate the variation range of the effectiveness difference when one-way sensitivity analysis was performed. Relevant assumptions are further required to limit the possibility of effectiveness calculated greater than 1 in sensitivity analysis among method 2 and 3. Comprehensively, method 4 can be recommended in the economic evaluations for fewer defects of calculating effectiveness.
Objective To investigate the clinical effectiveness of the total Flavones of Hippophae Rhamnoides L. (TFH) and compare its cost-effectiveness ratio with enalapril in patients with essential hypertension. Methods Among 3 971 staff members in two universities, 155 eligible patients with blood pressure (BP) ≥160/100 mmHg were screened and included in this study. By using a random number table, the patients were randomized to the two groups: TFH was given to the treatment group while enalapril in the control group. At the end of the six week, BP, total cost and cost-effectiveness ratio were measured in both TFH and enalapril groups. Results After six weeks, blood pressures in the TFH and enalapril groups decreased by 12.7±11.6/8.1±5.1 mmHg and 15.2±9.7/10.1±7.3 mmHg respectively, while the improvement rates of BP were 73.24% (52/71) and 74.65% (53/71) respectively. There were no differences between TFH and enalapril groups in lowering BP amplitude and total effectiveness rate. The incidence of side effect in TFH group was 11.27% (8/71), which was significantly lower than that of enalapril 29.6% (21/71). The total cost of TFH group was 9 294.6 RMB with the cost effectiveness ratio of 732/1 147 RMB per mmHg and 179 RMB per case. In the enalapril group, the total cost added up to 13 236 RMB with cost effectiveness ratio of 870/1 310 per mmHg and 250 RMB per case. Sensitivity analysis indicated that TFH was better than enalapril with respect to clinical economic value even when enalapril price dropped to 1.8 RMB for tablet (5 mg). Conclusion Compared with enalapril, TFH is an effective and economic drug in treating patients with hypertension.
Objective To evaluate the cost effectiveness of four different mechanisms clinical commonly used antidepressants, namely, amitriptyline, escitalopram, mirtazapine and venlafaxine in the treatment of moderate-severe depressive disorder in China and to provide clinicians with some advice. Methods We carried out the cost-effectiveness analysis of four antidepressants by establishing a decision tree model. The parameters uncertainty in the model was estimated through one-way sensitivity analysis. Results In terms of average cost-effectiveness ratio (CER), amitriptyline’s was 45.24 RMB, which was the lowest. And the CERs of mirtazapine, escitalopram and venlafaxine were 273.71 RMB, 332.00 RMB and 716.58 RMB, respectively. While in terms of incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), venlafaxine was excluded as the dominated strategy. When the threshold value of willingness to pay (WTP) was less than 3 420.92 RMB, amitriptyline was the most cost-effective; when the threshold value ranges between 3 420.92 RMB and 4 200 RMB, mirtazapine was the most cost-effective; and when the threshold value was over 4 200 RMB, escitalopram was the most cost-effective. In the one-way sensitivity analysis, when we changed the four kinds of drugs costs within a certain range, the results was not changed with the change of venlafaxine’s cost but changed with the other three drugs costs. Conclusion Clinicians may choose the most cost-effective therapy according to patients’ different WTP values. We suggests that health care institutions should encourage the use of escitalopram clinically and provide subsidies for patients so as to increase the overall society benefit.
ObjectiveTo compare the cost-effectiveness of etanercept combined with methotrexate to methotrexate plus placebo in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis and to provide references for clinical practice.MethodsDecision tree model was developed to estimate the cost-effectiveness from the perspective of the health care system by TreeAge Pro 2016 software. The cost-effectiveness of the two treatments were compared by incremental analysis, and the robustness of the results were analyzed by sensitivity analysis.ResultsThe cost of etanercept combined methotrexate group in one year duration was ¥212 692, the effective rate (ACR50) was 66.4%; the cost of methotrexate combined with placebo group in one year duration was ¥572, the effective rate (ACR50) was 40.6%. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of two groups was ¥818 000/person, and the sensitivity analysis showed that the results were robust.ConclusionEtanercept combined methotrexate is significant more effective than methotrexat. But the cost of etanercept combined methotrexate is too high to afford and is not economical compared to methotrexate.
ObjectiveTo compare the cost-effectiveness between endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography (ERCP) treatment and laparotomy treatment for simple common bile duct stone or common bile duct stone combined with gallbladder benign lesions. MethodsA total of 596 patients with common bile stone received ERCP (ERCP group) and 173 received open choledocholithotomy (surgical group) in our hospital between January 2009 and December 2012. Their clinical data were retrospectively analyzed. The curing rate, postoperative complications, hospital stay, preoperational preparation and total cost were compared between the two groups of patients. Meanwhile, for common bile stone combined with gallbladder benign lesion, 29 patients received ERCP combined with laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) (ERCP+LC group), 38 received pure laparoscopy treatment (laparoscopy group) and 129 received open choledocholithotomy combined with cholecystectomy (surgery group). ResultsFor simple common bile stone patients, no significant difference was found in cure rate and post-operative complication between endoscopic and surgical treatment groups (P>0.05). However, total hospitalization expenses[(13.1±6.3) thousand yuan, (20.6±7.5) thousand yuan)], hospital stay[(8.91±4.95), (12.14±5.15) days] and preoperative preparation time[(3.77±3.09), (5.13±3.99) days] were significantly different between the two groups (P<0.05). For patients with common bile stone combined with gallbladder benign lesion, no significant discrepancy was detected among the three groups in curing rate and post-operative complications (P>0.05). Significant differences were detected between ERCP+LC group and surgical group in terms of total hospitalization expense[(18.9±4.6) thousand yuan, (23.2±8.9) thousand yuan] hospital stay[(9.00±3.74), (12.47±4.50) days] and preoperative preparation time[(3.24±1.83), (5.15±2.98) days]. No significant difference was found in total hospitalization expense and hospital stay, while significant difference was detected in preoperative preparation time between ERCP+LC group and simple LC group. ConclusionFor patients with simple common bile stone, ERCP is equivalent to surgery in the curing rate, and has more advantages such as less cost, shorter length of hospital stay, and lower preoperative preparation time. For the treatment of common bile duct stone with gallbladder benign disease, ERCP combined with LC also has more advantages than traditional surgery.
Objective To compare the cost-effectiveness of Baofukang and Xinfuning in the treatment of HPV infection, and to provide references for reasonable clinical prescription, pricing drugs and the cognition product value. Methods Decision tree model was developed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of Baofukang and Xinfuning from the perspective of the cost payer. In the model, the effectiveness was mainly measured by the clearance rate of HPV based on meta-analysis. The cost data was mainly based on the published price data from the websites of the Development and Reform Commission, Bidding Center, the Health Department and so on. The single factor sensitivity analysis was performed based on the change of effectiveness and price. Results The effective rate of Baofukang treatment for 48 days was 61.89%, and the effective rate for 42 days was 63.05%, while Xinfuning’s effective rate for 30 days was 46.58%. The total cost were 668.61 yuan, 630.09 yuan and 850.83 yuan, respectively. Baofukang users had lower costs yet higher clearance rates of HPV compared to Xinfuning at different treatment time. In sensitivity analysis, the evaluation results would not been affected. Conclusion The current study suggests that Baofukang is more cost-effective than Xinfuning in the treatment of HPV infection.
ObjectiveTo systematically review the status of economic evaluation of liver cancer screening in China, so as to provide reference for further studies.MethodsPubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CNKI, WanFang Data, CBM and VIP databases were searched to collect economic evaluation studies of liver cancer screening in China from inception to December, 2017. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and conducted descriptive analysis of basic characteristics, methods of economic evaluation and main results as well as quality and uniformity of reporting.ResultsA total of 5 studies were included. Among them, the starting age of screening were found to be 35 to 45 years old; α-fetoprotein (AFP) testing and ultrasound examination combined procedure and screening interval of every 6 months were mostly evaluated. The quality of the 5 studies was satisfactory, and the uniformity of reporting was relatively acceptable, with a median score of 78% (range: 60% ~ 78%). Two population-based studies reported cost per liver cancer detected (44 thousand and 575 thousand yuan). Three studies reported cost-effectiveness ratio(CER) based on life year saved (LYS) and quality adjusted life year (QALY). Among these results, only 1 study from mainland China reported CER based on LYS (1 775 yuan), and the calculated ratio of CER to local GDP per capita was estimated as 0.1, while 2 studies from Taiwan province reported 4 CERs, and the ratios of CER to local GDP per capita ranged from 1.0 to 2.2.ConclusionsInformation from liver cancer endemic areas such as Taiwan province indicates promising cost-effectiveness to conduct liver cancer screening in local general population, while data from mainland suggests that conducting liver cancer screening combining AFP and ultrasound in high-risk population will be cost-effective, however only supported by 1 regional study. This needs to be verified by further economic evaluations based on randomized controlled trials or cohort studies as well as health economic evaluations.