Objectives To determine the health benefit of elbasvir/grazoprevir versus peginterferon combing with ribavirin (PR regimen) for Chinese chronic hepatitis C patients with genotype 1b infection. Methods Markov cohort state-transition models were constructed to conduct cost utility analysis. Sensitivity analyses were performed based on base-case analysis. Results Elbasvir/grazoprevir was dominant versus PR, resulting in higher QALYs and lower costs for both noncirrhotic patients (13.867 5 QALYs, 82 090.82 RMB vs. 12.696 2 QALYs, 122 791.55 RMB) and cirrhotic patients (12.841 6 QALYs, 225 807.70 RMB vs. 8.892 4 QALYs, 326 545.01 RMB). Elbasvir/grazoprevir was economically dominant in nearly 100% among all patients within the range of threshold from 0 to 161 805 RMB/QALY. Conclusions Elbasvir/grazoprevir was dominant in treatment of genotype 1b chronic hepatitis C infection in China.
ObjectiveTo systematically review the pharmacoeconomics research of coagulation factor Ⅷ for the treatment of hemophilia A. MethodsPubMed, EMbase, Web of Science, The Cochrane Library, CNKI, VIP and WanFang Data databases were electronically searched to collect pharmacoeconomic studies of coagulation factor Ⅷ for the treatment of hemophilia A from inception to February 2022. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies; then, qualitative systematic review was carried out from the aspects of research model, research parameters and uncertainty analysis. ResultsA total of 17 pharmacoeconomic studies were included. The overall quality of the included literature was relatively high, and most of them conformed to the basic framework of pharmacoeconomic research; however, there were still differences and deficiencies in model setting and parameter selection. Most results of the study evaluation showed that prophylaxis of coagulation factor Ⅷ had cost-effectiveness advantages over on-demand treatment. ConclusionCurrent evidence shows that the preventive treatment of coagulation factor Ⅷ may have certain cost-effectiveness advantages compared with on-demand treatment; however, the adaptability of this conclusion to China still needs to be analyzed.
ObjectivesTo systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of dezocine combine with sufentanil (DS) versus sufentanil (S) for postoperative analgesia.MethodsCNKI, WanFang Data, VIP, PubMed, Wiley Online Library and ScienceDirect databases were searched online to collect randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of DS versus S for postoperative analgesia from January 2011 to July 2017. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies, then, meta-analysis was performed by using Stata13.0 software.ResultsA total of 39 RCTs were included. The results of meta-analysis showed that: DS group had higher scores on VAS at 2 h, 6 h, 12 h, 24 h and 48 h points than S group at the dezocine level of 0.2 mg/kg. At the dezocine level of 0.3 mg/kg, there were no significant differences in scores on VAS at 2 h and 4 h. However, DS group had higher scores at 6 h, 12 h, 24 h and 48 h points. At the dezocine level of 10 mg/kg, there were no significant differences in scores on VAS at each time point in both groups. DS group was superior to S group in " excellent rate” and " good rate” of the analgesic satisfaction of patients. For safety, the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting of DS group was lower than S group.ConclusionsThe current evidence shows that dezocine combine with sufentanil have more effects of postoperative analgesia than sufentanil alone, and its incidence of adverse reactions is lower. Due to limited quality and quantity of the included studies, more high-quality studies are needed to verify above conclusions.