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 To evaluate the effectiveness, safety, cost and optimal dosing regimen of bone morphogenetic protein (BMP) used in the lumbar spine arthrodesis. Methods We formulated the clinical questions according to the PICO principle. We searched the ACP Journal Club (1991 to February 2008), The Cochrane Library (Issue 4, 2007) and PubMed (1990 to February 2008) as well as other relevant databases. The evidence retrieved was critically appraised. Results Current evidence showed that BMP was a satisfactory and safe behavior in lumbar arthrodesis. Its cost was equal to that of autogenous iliac bone graft. The types of BMP currently used in clinical practice are BMP-2 and BMP-7. Finished product of fixed composition ratio was recommended in anterior lumbar inter-body fusion, while in posterolateral fusion, 20mg of BMP-2 or 3.5mg of BMP-7 for each side was recommended, with proper carrier according to the place where it was used. Conclusion BMP may be introduced to China for lumbar spine arthrodesis. Before it is applied extensively, further large-scale, high-quality randomized controlled trials are needed. Meanwhile, more research is necessary to determine the proper dosage and preparation form for the dominant Chinese population.
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 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 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.
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。
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.
Objective To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of three LTBI screening strategies: the tuberculin skin test (TST), the T-SPOT.TB and the combination of TST and T-SPOT (TST+T.SPOT), to provide economic evidence for T.SPOT application in China. Methods A decision analysis model evaluated three strategies among a cohort of 1000 tuberculosis (TB) close contacts, using incremental cost-effectiveness of prevention a active TB patient (1 year post contact). Meta analyses were conducted to calculate the key parameters of T.SPOT and TST. The official data or literature was searched and the unaccessible data was to specify other parameters, such as cost, LTBI prevalence, etc. The one-way sensitivity analysis was performed, varying key parameters over a wide range of reasonable values to evaluate the impact of data uncertainties and to determine the robustness of our overall conclusion. Results a) As for the total cost, the TST+T.SPOT strategy (?212 213.81 per 1 000 contacts) cost the least, while the single T.SPOT strategy cost the most; b) Subsequently, the TST+T.SPOT strategy required less contacts to be treated to prevent an active case of TB (8.31) than the single TST strategy (25.67); c) the TST+T.SPOT strategy shared the most cost-effectiveness (?3 063.50 per active TB case prevented) than the single TST or T.SPOT strategy; and d) The results of one-way sensitivity analyses showed that cost-effectiveness values were sensitive to changes in LTBI prevalence (gt;60%), Sen and Spn of TST test (gt;70%), with the single TST being superior to the single T.SPOT. Conclusion The Single T.SPOT strategy enjoys the most cases prevented from active TB, while the TST+S.SPOT strategy is the most cost-effective. The conclusion is sensitive to a few parameters, such as LTBI prevalence, but the TST+T.SPOT strategy is always the best.