Onehealth, an evidence-based decision-making software, is based on the United Nations' epidemiological reference modules to predict the effect of health services. Onehealth is a large database. The software is using activitybased costing, simulating investment costs of health system and changes of mortality in different coverage levels. By the cost of inputs/avoid deaths, it could quantify the cost of health services effectiveness and provide an intuitive basis for the rational allocation of health resources. This study introduces the relevant concepts, model structures and applications of Onehealth. We took the study of child nutrition interventions in Sudan for example and to present Onehealth tool's operating. As a new auxiliary and evidence-based decision-making software with scientific and rigorous theoretical approach, Onehealth has practical significance on the national or regional macro decision-making.
ObjectiveTo evaluate the comparative cost-effectiveness of thrombolysis treatment of ischemic stroke based on outcomes of CT perfusion (CTP). MethodsWe applied the methods of systematic review to evaluate the studies abroad about the cost effectiveness of CTP diagnosis outcomes used for selecting stroke patients for thrombolysis treatment. We also evaluated the domestic studies about the cost-effectiveness of CTP in China by establishing a decision tree model. ResultsA total of 2 economics studies were included. The results showed that, the cost-effectiveness ratios of CT, CTP and MRI for selecting stroke patients for thrombolysis treatment were 2 983.7 ￡/QALY, 2 951.4 ￡/QALY and 2 982.9 ￡/ QALY, respectively, in the UK; 100 483.5＄/QALY and 99 406.1＄/QALY just for CT and CTP, respectively, in the US; and the evaluation outcomes by establishing the decision tree model showed that, 113 492.4 ￥/QALY, 113 615￥/QALY and 120 831.9 ￥/QALY, respectively, in China. ConclusionAll international and domestic studies' results show that CTP is more cost-effective than CT/MRI in selecting stroke patients for thrombolysis treatment.
Objective To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of chemotherapy in children with newly diagnosed Hodgkin lymphoma at low-, intermediate-, and high-risk. Methods From the perspective of health system, a decision-tree model was designed for cost-effectiveness analysis. The chemotherapy regimens of low-risk group included OEPA (vincristine, etoposide, prednisone, doxorubicin), AV-PC (doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisone, cyclophosphamide), and ABVD (doxorubicin, bleomycin, vincristine, dacarbazine); intermediate-risk group included OEPA, ABVE-PC (doxorubicin, bleomycin, vincristine, etoposide, prednisone, cyclophosphamide) and ABVD; high-risk group included OEPA, ABVE-PC, ABVD and BEACOPP (bleomycin, etoposide, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, procarbazine, prednisone). The effectiveness and cost parameters were derived from the event-free survival rate reported in the literature, the drug linked reference price in Sichuan province, and treatment price of medical institutions. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were performed to explore the impact of uncertainty. Results In the low-risk group, compared with AV-PC, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) of OEPA and ABVD were 80 700 yuan and 108 799 yuan, respectively. In the intermediate-risk group, compared with OEPA, the ICER of ABVE-PC and ABVD were −17 737 yuan and −4 701 yuan respectively. In the high-risk group, compared with ABVE-PC, the ICER of OEPA, ABVD and BEACOPP were 149 262, 472 090 and 64 652 yuan, respectively. Univariate sensitivity analysis showed that in low-risk group, the most influential factors were cost of OEPA and cost of ABVD; in moderate-risk group were cost of ABVE-PC and cost of OEPA; in the high-risk group were cost of OEPA, cost of ABVD, and cost of BEACOPP, respectively. The results of probabilistic sensitivity analysis are basically consistent with those of the main analysis. Conclusion If China's per capita gross domestic product in 2023 (89 358 yuan) was used as the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold, OEPA in the low-risk group, OEPA in the intermediate-risk group and BEACOPP in the high-risk group are cost-effective.
目的:比较国产生长抑素与进口生长抑素治疗消化性溃疡出血的经济效果。方法:将120例消化性溃疡伴出血的患者随机分成国产生长抑素及进口生长抑素组,分别给予国产生长抑素、进口生长抑素治疗3天,观察疗效,并进行药物经济学评价。 结果: 国产生长抑素、进口生长抑素治疗上消化道出血成本分别为558元和4116元,有统计学差异(P＜005);有效率分别为925%和968%,无统计学差异 (Pgt;005),成本—效果比分别为60324和425207,有统计学差异(P＜005)。结论: 从药物经济学角度分析,国产生长抑素治疗消化性溃疡出血较进口生长抑素更为经济。
ObjectiveTo analyze the efficacy, hospitalization cost and cost-effect of different treatments for multiple myeloma, so as to provide references for the treatment and development medical insurance payment policy of multiple myeloma.MethodsA total of 60 cases of multiple myeloma patients who were treated in the General Hospital of Shenyang Military Command from January 1st, 2013 to December 31st, 2017 were included. According to the treatment method, they were categorized into the traditional treatment group (n=37) and novel drug treatment group (n=23). The total response rate and hospitalisation expenses for patients with medical insurance of the two groups were calculated and compared, and cost-effectiveness analysis was then performed.ResultsThe overall response rate in patients in traditional treatment group was 56.76% (21/37), and in novel drug treatment group was 82.61% (19/23) (χ2=4.366, P=0.039). The annual average drug fee, annual average novel drug fee, secondary average drug fee, secondary average novel drug fee, annual average total cost, and secondary average total cost of the medical insurance patients in the novel drug treatment group were significantly higher than those in the traditional treatment group (P<0.05). The annual average cost of personal and coordinated payment for the medical insurance patients in the novel drug treatment group were 172 229.53 yuan and 48 237.51 yuan, respectively, which were significantly higher than the traditional treatment group (P<0.01). The cost-effectiveness ratio of the traditional treatment group was 884.44 yuan/%, the novel drug treatment group was 2 821.80 yuan/%, the cost-effective incremental ratio was 7 075.75 yuan/%, the incremental cost-effective ratio was 7 075.75 yuan/%, and the sensitivity analysis was consistent with the results.ConclusionsThe total response rate of novel drug treatment is significantly higher than traditional treatment. However, novel drug treatment costs higher, and patient's economic burden is also higher. The traditional treatment is superior to novel drug treatment in cost-effectiveness analysis.
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.
Objective This study analyzed the medical expenditure and its influential factors, and compared the clinical effectiveness and medical expenditure of three major drugs. Methods We designed the cohort study to compare the difference of medical and pharmaceutical expenditures between patients with and without underlying diseases. Multi-linear regression was applied to analyze the influential factors. Incremental expenditure-effectiveness ratio was applied to study three clinically important drugs. Results The curing rate of non-critical patients was statistically significant than critical patients (73.68%, 99.38%, P=0.000) .The curing rate of non-critical patients without underlying diseases was statistically significant than those with underlying diseases in the cohort (96%, 99.66%, P=0.001 6). No significance was identified in the critical patients cohort. The medical expenditure of non-critical patients with and without underlying diseases were 7 879.22 and 7 172.23 RMB per capita, respectively. Accordingly, the medical expenditure in critical patients was 24 912.89 and 26 433.53 RMB per capita. No significance was identified in the two cohorts. Medical expenditure was positively correlated with age and disease severity, with its equation y=4585.71+79.04X1+17188.87X2 (X1: age, X2: disease severity). Regarding the clinical effectiveness and medical expenditure, no significance was identified in critical patients who administered small and medium dose of Methylprednisolone. The expenditure-effectiveness ratios of Ribavirin that was administered by non-critical patients without underlying dissuades were 6 107 and 4 225 RMB, respectively. Accordingly, the expenditure-effectiveness ratios of Thymosin were 11 651 and 6 107 RMB. Conclusions The curing rate of non-critical patients without underlying diseases was higher than the counterpart in the cohort. No influence of underlying diseases was found in the critical patient cohort. Medical expenditure was positively correlated with age and disease severity. Small-and-medium dose of Methylprednisolone might not influence the curing rate and medical expenditure in critical patients. The effectiveness of Thymosin for non-critical patients with and without underlying diseases was not significantly different. However, additional 5 877 RMB occurred if Thymosin was administrated. Likewise, the effectiveness of Ribavirin for non-critical patients remains the same. However, additional 1 082 RMB was consumed in Ribavirin-administrated patient.
Health economics analysis has become increasingly important in recent years. It is essential to master the use of relevant software to conduct research in health economics. TreeAge Pro software is widely used in the healthcare decision analysis. It can carry out decision analysis, cost-effectiveness analysis, and Monte Carlo simulation. With powerful functionlity and outstanding visualization, it can build Markov disease transition models to analyze Markov processes according to disease models and accomplish decision analysis with decision trees and influence diagrams. This paper introduces cost-effectiveness analysis based on Markov model with examples and explains the main graphs.
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.