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.
Traditional randomized controlled trial and real-world study have different advantages in internal validity and external extensibility, respectively. With the development of evidence-based health decisions, randomized controlled trial was no longer the only golden standard of interventional study, the research evidence of the real world was gradually involved in health decisions. This study mainly analyzed the requirements of evidence and actual application of evidence in the evaluation of the effectiveness of NICE in the UK. It was found that NICE still used the results of randomized controlled trials as a primary basis. Although real-world research has developed rapidly in recent years, it was limited used in health decision because of its bias by design and other factors. However, in recent years, real-world evidence has played a significant role in the field of innovative drugs or diseases that lack therapeutic drugs. With the improvement of real-world research in experimental design and data analysis, it is expected that it will play a more important role in health decision-making.
The R software bmeta package is a package that implements Bayesian meta-analysis and meta-regression by invoking JAGS software. The program is based on the Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) algorithm to combine various effect quantities (OR, MD and IRR) of different types of data (dichotomies, continuities and counts). The package has the advantages of fewer command function parameters, rich models, powerful drawing function, easy of understanding and mastering. In this paper, an example is presented to demonstrate the complete operation flow of bmeta package to implement bayesian meta-analysis and meta-regression.
Objective To systematically review the pharmacoeconomic evaluation related to relapsed or refractory B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (r/r B-ALL), and to summarize its model structure, parameter inclusion and other methodological parts for future r/r B-ALL-related interventions, and to provide references for conducting pharmacoeconomic evaluations. Methods PubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library, CNKI and WanFang Data databases were electronically searched to collect relevant literature on the pharmacoeconomic evaluation model of r/r B-ALL from inception to August 6th, 2021. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data, and assessed the quality of the included studies. The data on the model structure, methods, and parameter inclusion were then summarized. Results A total of 10 studies using different modeling methods were included. Due to the lack of head-to-head trials, most of the efficacy parameters for the intervention and control groups were derived from different clinical trials and compared indirectly. All studies used quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) as output indicators, and some used life years (LYs) as output indicators and reported the incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER). All studies measured the cost of treatment and hematopoietic stem cell transplantation; a few studies also conducted subgroup analysis. Conclusion The number of studies on the economic evaluation of r/r B-ALL is relatively small, and there are large differences in model types, health status, and parameter inclusion. It is suggested that researchers should guarantee the integrity of the report format and normative according to available data choice drug economics evaluation model and establish the reasonable hypothesis under the condition of the patient population heterogeneity uncertainty, perform subgroup analysis especially on the subgroup which did not receive salvage therapy. In the absence of head-to-head clinical trials, appropriate indirect comparison methods are adopted according to the data obtained to reduce methodological differences and improve the quality of relevant pharmacoeconomic research in China.
ObjectiveTo systematically review the pharmacoeconomics of hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis in patients with end-stage renal disease. MethodsCRD, NICE, CADTH, HITAP, NECA, IWIQG, ISPOR, PubMed, EMbase, CNKI, and WanFang Data databases were electronically searched to collect pharmacoeconomic studies on the hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis in the treatment of end-stage renal disease from inception to December 2020. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. Then, the conclusions of research models, pharmacoeconomic evaluation results, and sensitivity analysis were summarized. ResultsA total of 15 pharmacoeconomic studies were included, among which 9 studies used the Markov state transition model, and 6 were observational studies. From the perspective of health outcomes, peritoneal dialysis had cost-effectiveness advantages over hemodialysis in the treatment of end-stage renal disease under the condition of a clear threshold. ConclusionsCurrent evidence shows that compared with hemodialysis, peritoneal dialysis has certain cost-effectiveness advantages in the treatment of end-stage renal disease. Due to limited quality and quantity of the included studies, more high-quality studies are required to verify the above conclusions.