ObjectiveTo compare medical cost and utilization efficiency of medical resources between manual layered anastomosis with mechanical stapling technique in esophagectomy. MethodsClinical data of 132 patients who underwent surgical resection of esophageal carcinoma in the Department of Thoracic Surgery of Gansu Tumor Hospital between January and October 2011 were respectively analyzed. According to different anastomotic techniques, all the patients were divided into a manual layered anastomosis group (including 40 males and 20 females with their age of 36-72 (49.3±7.6) years) and a mechanical stapling technique group (including 50 males and 22 females with their age of 30-79 (51.0±8.6) years). Demographic data, operation data, postoperative complications, direct and indirect medical cost, and constitution of direct medical cost were compared between the 2 groups. ResultsMedical cost of esophagectomy was 14 505.03± 1 523.37 yuan in the manual layered anastomosis group and 19 891.05±1 634.58 yuan in the mechanical stapling technique group respectively, which were statistically different (P < 0.05). Material cost was 2 242.00±751.08 yuan in the manual layered anastomosis group and 5 424.00±1 876.22 yuan in the mechanical stapling technique group respectively, which were statistically different (P < 0.05). Cost-effectiveness analysis showed that cost-effectiveness ratio in the manual layered anastomosis group was lower, thus this anastomotic technique was more reasonable. ConclusionMedical cost of manual layered anastomosis is lower than that of mechanical stapling technique in esophagectomy, as the utilization efficiency of medical resources of manual layered anastomosis is higher than that of mechanical stapling technique.
Economic evaluation used alongside clinical trials has become a hot spot in the development of clinical studies. The definition and classification of the cost were introduced in this article. The ways to conduct cost analysis in clinical trials were introduced systematically, including the identification, collection and analysis of the data of costs, and the concern of the analysis.
ObjectiveTo systematically review the pharmacoeconomic studies of negotiated drugs in the Chinese National Reimbursement Drug List (NRDL). MethodsPubMed, 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. ResultsA 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. ConclusionThe 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.
Objective To critically appraise and systematically reviewe the economic evaluations of all alternative interventions for hepatitis B in China. Methods We searched MEDLINE and the four largest Chinese electronic databases. The references of eligible studies were also screened. Economic evaluations of any type, which studied interventions for hepatitis B, were eligible for inclusion. A 25-item quality checklist modified from a BMJ checklist was used to appraise the quality of studies. The overall quality score was calculated against 100 points to indicate the risk of bias. Quality appraisal and data extraction were conducted by two independent reviewers. Results Nineteen full economic evaluations and two cost studies were included of which fourteen studies were scored 25-44 points, and seven scored 45-61 points. Most studies adequately documented effectiveness of interventions. However, the costs of interventions were not well reported in over 50% of studies. Many studies inadequately conducted data analysis, particular in sensitivity analysis and discounting. Ten studies compared lamivudine with interferon or conventional therapy for 1-year (or 6-month) effects, which indicated that lamivudine was generally cost-effective. Three evaluations studied 30-year outcomes of interferon compared with conventional therapy, which suggested that interferon usually saved additional costs and years of life. Another three studies compared interferon with less frequently used antiviral agents, however the comparative cost-effectiveness varied. Two cost studies showed the total costs and the percentage of medical costs increased rapidly in proportion to disease severity.Conclusions Of alternative interventions, lamivudine is cost effective for short-term effects. Interferon is superior to conventional therapy for long-term outcomes. However, the long-term economic outcomes cannot be justified by the current evidence. Quality of methods, particularly, that of costing and analytical methods, is a major limitation. There remains a b need to improve the quality of reporting. Careful considerations should be paid before applying the results to decision making.
ObjectiveTo systematically review the economy of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) for COVID-19. MethodsThe Web of Science, PubMed, EMbase, Cochrane Library, INAHTA, CNKI, WanFang Data and SinoMed databases were electronically searched to collect studies on health economic evaluations from 1 January 2020 to 20 August 2022. Then the included materials were reviewed, extracted and data integration analysis were conducted based on inclusion and exclusion criteria. ResultsSeventy-one academic publications were finally included, which contained 25 papers about nucleic acid testing, antigen testing and screening, 5 papers about personal protection, 12 papers about social distancing, quarantine and isolation, 11 papers about regional or national lockdown and 18 papers about multiple NPIs. The results showed that compared with no intervention, nucleic acid testing, antigen testing, screening and personal protection measures were economical. Social distancing, quarantine and isolation were also economical compared with no intervention. However, in low-income countries, movement restriction and factory shutdown may exact a heavy toll on the poorest and most vulnerable. Moreover, compared with a single long-term lockdown, multiple short-term lockdowns could be more economical, but the cost was still huge overall. ConclusionNPIs such as nucleic acid testing, antigen testing, personal protection, social distancing, quarantine, isolation and factory shutdown are economical. Although regional or national lockdown can save lives, it is not suitable for wide use. The researches on specific populations, specific variants (especially Omicron) and in the context of China need to be carried out.
ObjectiveTo systematically review the economic evaluation research of anti-novel coronavirus infection drugs at home and abroad, so as to promote clinical rational drug use. MethodsThe PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMbase, Web of Science, INAHTA, SinoMed, WanFang Data, and CNKI databases were systematically searched from January 1, 2020 to March 25, 2023, to collect economic evaluation studies related to anti-novel coronavirus infection drugs. ResultsA total of 22 articles were included, among which 11 studies were conducted from the perspective of health system, and most of the studies performed cost estimation on direct medical costs. The overall compliance rate of the included studies ranged from 42% to 70%, with deficiencies in model setting, incomplete uncertainty analysis, and lack of stakeholder participation. The results showed that immunotherapy drugs (Dexamethasone, Tocilizumab), neutralizing antibody (REGEN-COV antibody), small molecule drugs (Baricitinib, Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir, Molnupiravir, Favipiravir) and statin were cost-effective. There was some variation in the results of the economic evaluation of Remdesivir. ConclusionAt present, there are few studies on the economic evaluation of drug interventions in COVID-19. Existing studies have pointed out that most drug interventions are cost-effective. It is suggested that more standardized pharmacoeconomic evaluation studies based on the actual situation of China epidemic should be carried out in the future.
ObjectiveTo systematically review the health economic evaluation studies in which externalities of antibacterial drug uses were identified.MethodsPubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library, CNKI, WanFang Data and VIP databases were electronically searched to collect health economic evaluation studies in which externalities of antibacterial drug uses were identified from inception to December 31st, 2020. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. Descriptive analysis was then performed.ResultsA total of 14 studies were included. Negative externalities and their impacts on costs and/or effectiveness were examined in 13 literature, and positive externalities in terms of an improvement in disease control were included in only one study. No study was found in which both negative and positive externalities were included. The methods used to quantify negative externalities included: only costs associated with drug resistance per prescription or per unit were calculated; both costs and health impacts associated with the second/third line treatments followed a treatment failure (due to drug resistance) were calculated using a decision tree. In one study in which positive externalities were measured, both health gain and cost reduction from an improvement in disease control (as a benefit of antibacterial drug uses) were calculated by constructing a dynamic model at the population level.ConclusionsWe propose that both the positive and negative externalities should be included in health economic evaluation. This can be achieved by measuring the relevant costs and health impacts in a broader perspective, using a disease-transmission dynamic model. In addition, to achieve an improved health utility measurement, disability-adjusted-life years rather than quality-adjusted-life years should be encouraged for use. Finally, both costs and effectiveness should be discounted.
Acute kidney injury (AKI) is common in hospitalized individuals, associated with adverse outcomes and increased cost. Continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) is used to treat critically ill patients with AKI, of which the cost in acute phase is higher than that of intermittent renal replacement therapy (IRRT). However, if treatment for subsequent chronic kidney disease or dialysis dependency following AKI is also considered, CRRT might be more cost-effective than IRRT. In this editorial, the cost and health economic evaluation of CRRT for critically ill patients is discussed.
Objective To evaluate the diagnosis value of temporal Done high-resolution computed tornography (HRCT) in cholesteatoma. Methods There were 30 causes that had received the mastoid surgery because of cholesteatoma. Each patient’s mastoid plain films (Schuller’s and Mayer’s ) and HRCT had been taken and compared with each other and surgical findings and evaluated with health economic evaluation methods. Results The sensitivity rate in diagnosing cholesteatoma with HRCF was much higher than that with mastoid film (Plt;0.005). The more important benefit with HRCT was that it can afford the detail information in ear such as the ossicular chain, facial nerve canal, tympanic sinus, etc. which were basis for otologist in surgery to remove the focus thoroughly and reconstruct the middle ear function at the same time. In the view of health economic evaluation, HRCT is also much better than mastoid X-ray film. Conclusion HRCT should replace masloid Schuller’s and Mayer’s film in diagnosis cholesteatoma and HRCT should use as ordinary examination in chronic otitis media.