Objective To systematically review the health economic evaluations of using long-term rhythm-control antiarrhythmic drugs (AAD) for patients with paroxysmal or persistent atrial fibrillation (AF). Methods Databases including PubMed, EMbase, Scopus, CNKI, SinoMed, WanFang Data, and official websites of well-established health technology assessment (HTA) institutions were electronically searched to present the economic evaluations of AAD and the recommendations of HTA institutions based on drug economy from inception to April 23rd, 2022. Two reviewers independently screened the literature, extracted data and systematic review was then performed. Results A total of 19 studies were included, including 11 cost-effectiveness or cost-utility analysis studies and 8 official documents from HTA institutions. Only 5 (45.5%) economic evaluations were of relatively high quality, and English language studies were of higher quality than Chinese language studies ones. The included studies lacked elements that CHEERS 2022 concerns, such as health economics analysis plans, equity and distributional effects, engagement with patients and other stakeholders and the impact on the study. Dronedarone and amiodarone were the main focus of the evaluation, and the study results showed that dronedarone was cost-effective compared with other drugs in different study designs and national settings. However, there were differences between the recommendations of HTA agencies and the results of economic evaluation studies. Conclusion The completeness of health economics evaluations needs to be improved, along with the quality of clinical evidence in the field of AF-AAD for Chinese patients. Additionally, the informational value of drugs should be thoroughly investigated through budget impact analysis and distributional cost-effectiveness analysis to provide evidence of high-quality studies for decision-makers in China.
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 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.