ObjectivesTo systematically review the methods of pharmacoeconomic evaluation model for hepatitis C therapies and to identify shortcomings of the existing modeling research by comparing the model structure, hypothesis and methodological differences, and to provide suggestions for the construction of high-quality hepatitis C pharmacoeconomic evaluation models.MethodsPubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library, CNKI and WanFang Data databases were electronically searched to collect relevant literatures on the pharmacoeconomic evaluation models for hepatitis C therapies from August 2014 to August 2019. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data, and evaluated the quality of the included studies. Then, the data related to the model structure, methods, and assumptions were compared and summarized.ResultsMost of the 46 studies that finally included used similar modeling methods. Ignoring different modeling elements would cause overestimation or underestimation of the value of hepatitis C therapies. Model structure of all studies were similar and key parameters were from the same source. Forty-five studies measured the cost of drugs and medical cost of health status. All studies used quality-adjusted life years as the outcome and reported incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Thirty studies conducted one-way sensitivity analysis and probability sensitivity analysis.ConclusionsThe included studies share similar methodological designs and have high quality in general. However, there are some differences and deficiencies in research perspective, model types, model assumptions and model verification. Future pharmacoeconomic evaluation model of hepatitis C therapies should report the results of the whole society, establish dynamic model to consider the impact of transmission, make half-cycle correction for long periods, consider the recurrence after cure, model liver transplantation, and verify the model.
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.
ObjectivesTo compare and analyze existing pharmaceutical economic evaluations quality assessment instruments, and to provide suggestions on how to choose the most appropriate instrument.MethodsPubMed, EMbase, ScienceDirect, Web of Science, CNKI, WanFang Data and VIP databases were electronically searched to collect studies on existing pharmaceutical economic evaluations quality assessment instruments from inception to December, 2017. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and analyzed studies in terms of items, design methods, scopes and characteristics.ResultsTwelve original checklists with good reliability and validity were found. The first quality assessment method was designed in 1987 and the latest one was published in 2013. The number of checklist items ranged from 11 to 61.ConclusionThere is no consolidated method for assessing the quality of pharmaceutical economics evaluations. Evaluators can choose appropriate evaluation tools according to the purpose, type and operability of evaluation.
ObjectiveTo introduce economic evaluation methods for anticancer-drugs with basket trial design, and to provide references for related research and decision-making. MethodsA case analysis was conducted on economic evaluation methods for anticancer-drugs with basket trial design, which was issued by Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH) in the Economic Guidance Report. Moreover, both the advantages and disadvantages of the methods were analyzed in accordance with the characteristics of basket trials. ResultsPooled analysis and tumor-specific analysis were two methods frequently employed in the case analysis. However, great uncertainties were available in both of them. The uncertainty of the former was mainly reflected in the heterogeneity of the targeted population, while the uncertainty of the latter was mainly shown in the insufficient sample size of the subgroup. ConclusionCurrently, economic evaluation methods for anticancer-drugs with basket trial design are immature. Thus, researchers are required to explore the methods of innovation evaluation with lower uncertainty; reimbursement decision-makers should fully consider the uncertainty of evaluation results and enterprises should collect the real-world data for the demands of evaluation to promote the reasonable allocation of healthcare resources in China.
Objective To assess the quality of budget impact analysis in China and Canada. Methods We searched databases including PubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library, CNKI, WanFang Data and VIP from inception to 1st November, 2016, to collect studies about budget impact analysis. Two reviewers independently screened literatures, extracted data and assessed the quality of included studies. Results 27 literatures were included. The mean grades of Chinese and Canadian literatures were 3.8 and 5.5, respectively. Some Chinese studies did not explicitly clarify the research perspective. Few studies in China were conducted according to budget holders’ perspective and with a short time horizon, or examined the results using sensitivity analyses responsive to the uncertainty surrounding future market developments, or compared between current and comparator scenarios. These deficiencies were not conducive to scientific and rational decision-making. Conclusion The quality of budget impact analysis is relatively low in China. It is needed to establish uniform budget impact analysis guideline to improve quality to guide decision making.
ObjectivesTo compare the common application methods of meta-analysis results used in economic evaluations so as to provide reference and suggestions for similar economic evaluations in future.MethodsFour methods were used to calculate the effectiveness deriving from meta-analysis of omeprazole and esomeprazole in the treatment of peptic ulcer, then substituted into the decision tree model to perform cost-effectiveness analysis.ResultsMethod 1 used the risk difference as the incremental effectiveness. The ICER was ￥2 420, and the equal probability point of the cost-effectiveness acceptability curve (CEAC) in the probability sensitivity analysis was approximately ￥2 600. Method 2 used the effective rate of the study group in high-quality literatures as the benchmark, calculated the effective rate of the control group according to the RR. The ICER was ￥2 016, and the equal probability point of the CEAC was approximately￥2 000. Method 3 was based on the effective rate of the control group in high-quality literatures to calculate the effective rate of the study group according to RR. The ICER was ￥2 420 and the equal probability point of the CEAC was approximately￥2 200; Method 4 used literature weights to calculate the effectiveness, the ICER is ￥2 420, and the equal probability point of the CEAC was about ￥2 400.ConclusionsThe results of the four methods share little difference, and the sensitivity analysis results show that the base case analysis results are more robust. However, in the application process, method 1 lacks specific effectiveness of the two groups and underestimate the variation range of the effectiveness difference when one-way sensitivity analysis was performed. Relevant assumptions are further required to limit the possibility of effectiveness calculated greater than 1 in sensitivity analysis among method 2 and 3. Comprehensively, method 4 can be recommended in the economic evaluations for fewer defects of calculating effectiveness.
Objective To systematically evaluate the short-term efficacy and safety of McKeown and Sweet methods in the treatment of esophageal cancer. Methods PubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Wanfang, VIP, CNKI and China General Library of Biomedical Literature were searched for literature on the short-term efficacy and safety of McKeown and Sweet methods in the treatment of esophageal cancer published from the establishment to May 2023. Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to evaluate the quality of researches, and meta-analysis was performed using RevMan5.4. Results A total of 9 articles were included, involving 3687 patients including 1019 in the McKeown group and 2668 in the Sweet group. NOS score was 8-9 points. There were no statistical differences in the age, sex or American Joint Committee on Cancer stage between the two groups (P>0.05). Patients in the McKeown group had longer operative time and hospital stay, more intraoperative blood loss, and higher Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group scores than those in the Sweet group (P<0.05). However, the McKeown operation could remove more lymph nodes. In terms of safety, the incidences of pulmonary complications [OR=2.20, 95%CI (1.40, 3.46), P＜0.001] and postoperative anastomotic leakage [OR=2.06, 95%CI (1.45, 2.92), P＜0.001] were higher in the McKeown group than those in the Sweet group. In addition, there were no statistical differences between the two groups in the Karnofsky score, cardiac complications, vocal cord injury or paralysis, chylous leakage, or gastric emptying (P>0.05). Conclusion Compared with McKeown, Sweet method has advantages in operation time, intraoperative blood loss and hospital stay, and had lower incidence of postoperative pulmonary complications and anastomotic leakage. However, McKeown has more lymph node dissection.
This article aims to explore the application of health economics evidence in the development of clinical practice guidelines and evidence recommendations, and to provide better references for clinical decision-making. By reviewing the use of health economics evidence in domestic and international clinical practice guidelines, the difficulties in the application of health economics evidence in the development of clinical practice guidelines and evidence recommendations were summarized. It was found that there were significant differences in the use of health economics evidence in clinical practice guidelines in different countries, and these differences were affected by the goals of clinical practice guidelines and limitations of health economics evidence itself, lacking standardized methodological guidance, resulting in limited use of health economics evidence in clinical practice guidelines. Therefore, further research is needed to optimize the integration of health economics and clinical practice guidelines, and develop standardized methodological guidance.
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.
Objective To assess the midterm follow-up outcomes of total hip arthroplasty (THA) for the treatment of patients with juvenile-onset ankylosing spondylitis (JAS). Methods The clinical data of 81 patients (127 hips) with JAS (age≤16 years, JAS group) and 267 patients (391 hips) with adult onset ankylosing spondylitis (AAS) (age>16 years, AAS group) between January 2004 and March 2018 were retrospectively analysed. The baseline demographics, clinical, radiographic, and laboratory parameters were collected. Before operation and at last follow-up, the overall disease activity [Bath ankylosing spondylitis disease activity index (BASDAI)] and function status [Bath ankylosing spondylitis functional index (BASFI)], hip subjective score [Harris hip score (HHS)] and objective score [12-item short form health survey (SF-12), including physical component score (PCS) and mental component score (MCS)], and patient satisfaction for THA were reviewed. The major orthopedic complications, including periprosthetic infection, dislocation, periprosthetic fractures, and poor incision healing, were also recorded during the follow-up period. Results The comparison of preoperative baseline parameters showed that the body mass, body mass index, age of onset, age of surgery, disease duration, and the proportion of combined smoking history in the JAS group were significantly lower than those in the AAS group (P<0.05), the proportion of bilateral surgeries, proportion of uveitis, proportion of combined family history, C-reactive protein, albumin, and preoperative BASFI were significantly higher than those in the AAS group (P<0.05). Both groups were followed up. The follow-up time in the JAS group was 29-199 months, with an average of 113 months; in the AAS group was 35-199 months, with an average of 98 months. Incisions in both groups healed by first intention. During the follow-up period, there were 1 case of periprosthetic fracture, 1 case of dislocation, and 1 case of ceramic fragmentation in the JAS group, 1 case of periprosthetic infection and 6 cases of periprosthetic fracture in the AAS group. There was no significant difference in the incidence of complications between the two groups (P>0.05). At last follow-up, the BASDAI, BASFI, SF-12 MCS, SF-12 PCS, and HHS score of the two groups were significantly improved when compared with those before operation (P<0.05); but there was no significan difference in the difference of the above parameters before and after operation and the patient satisfaction between the two groups (P>0.05). Conclusion The midterm follow-up outcomes of THA for the treatment of JAS patients were reliable. A low age at disease onset did not exert a significant negative effect on THA reconstruction for the treatment of ankylosing spondylitis.