The pharmacoeconomic analyses of the Chinese national drug negotiations: a systematic review_Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine

Authors：

HE Zixuan ¹ , HUANG Xianqin ² , CHEN Dingyi ² , WANG Guo’an ² , ZHU Yuezhen ² , HAN Sheng ¹ ,  GUAN Xiaodong ^1,2 , SHI Luwen ^1,2

1. International Research Center for Medicinal Administration, Peking University, Beijing 100191, P. R. China;
2. School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Peking University, Beijing 100191, P. R. China;

Corresponding?author：

GUAN Xiaodong, Email: guanxiaodong@pku.edu.cn

Keywords：

National drug negotiation; Pharmacoeconomic analysis; Economic evaluation of drug

DOI：

10.7507/1672-2531.202207108

Video：

Export PDF Favorites Scan Get Citation

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Objective To systematically review the pharmacoeconomic studies of negotiated drugs in the Chinese National Reimbursement Drug List (NRDL). Methods PubMed, 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. Results A 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. Conclusion The 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.

Citation： HE Zixuan, HUANG Xianqin, CHEN Dingyi, WANG Guo’an, ZHU Yuezhen, HAN Sheng, GUAN Xiaodong, SHI Luwen. The pharmacoeconomic analyses of the Chinese national drug negotiations: a systematic review. Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine, 2023, 23(2): 159-169. doi: 10.7507/1672-2531.202207108 Copy

1.	李凱悅, 劉輝, 蔣倩. 歷年國家醫保談判藥品概況與分析—抗腫瘤藥品專題. 腫瘤藥學, 2021, 11(2): 229-235.
2.	Hill-McManus D, Marshall S, Liu J, et al. Linked pharmacometric-pharmacoeconomic modeling and simulation in clinical drug development. Clin Pharmacol Ther, 2021, 110(1): 49-63.
3.	Barnieh L, Manns B, Harris A, et al. A synthesis of drug reimbursement decision-making processes in organisation for economic co-operation and development countries. Value Health, 2014, 17(1): 98-108.
4.	Commonwealth Department of Human Services and Health. Guidelines for the pharmaceutical industry on preparation of submissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee: including major submissions involving economic analyses. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service, 1995.
5.	Cairns J. Providing guidance to the NHS: The Scottish medicines consortium and the national institute for clinical excellence compared. Health Policy, 2006, 76(2): 134-143.
6.	Canadian Coordinating Ofﬁce for Health Technology Assessment. Guidelines for economic evaluation of pharmacoeconomics. Ottawa: CCOHTA, 1994.
7.	Ofﬁce of Technology Assessment. Health care technology and its assessment in eight countries. Washington (DC): US Congress, Ofﬁce of Technology Assessment, 1995.
8.	Drummond M. Pharmacoeconomics: friend or foe. Ann Rheum Dis, 2006, 65(Suppl 3): iii44-iii47.
9.	國務院辦公廳. 關于印發“十三五”深化醫藥衛生體制改革規劃的通知, 2016-12-27. Available at: http://www.gov.cn/zhengce/content/2017-01/09/content_5158053.htm.
10.	國務院辦公廳. 關于改革完善醫療衛生行業綜合監管制度的指導意見. 中國衛生監督雜志, 2018, 25(5): 414-418.
11.	國家醫保局. 2019年國家醫保藥品目錄調整工作方案, 2019-04-17. Available at: http://www.gov.cn/xinwen/2019-04/19/content_5384349.htm.
12.	國家醫保局. 基本醫療保險用藥管理暫行辦法, 2020-07-30. Available at: http://www.gov.cn/zhengce/zhengceku/2020-08/04/content_5532409.htm.
13.	Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ, 2009, 339: b2535.
14.	Husereau D, Drummond M, Augustovski F, et al. Consolidated health economic evaluation reporting standards 2022 (cheers 2022) statement: updated reporting guidance for health economic evaluations. Value Health, 2022, 25(1): 3-9.
15.	Ming J, Zhang Y, Xu X, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of intravitreal aflibercept in the treatment of diabetic macular edema in China. J Comp Eff Res, 2020, 9(3): 161-175.
16.	Gu X, Zhang Q, Chu YB, et al. Cost-effectiveness of afatinib, gefitinib, erlotinib and pemetrexed-based chemotherapy as first-line treatments for advanced non-small cell lung cancer in China. Lung Cancer, 2019, 127: 84-89.
17.	Zhu J, He W, Ye M, et al. Cost-effectiveness of afatinib and erlotinib as second-line treatments for advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the lung. Future Oncol, 2018, 14(27): 2833-2840.
18.	Wang H, Zeng C, Li X, et al. Cost-utility of afatinib and gefitinib as first-line treatment for EGFR-mutated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. Future Oncol, 2019, 15(2): 181-191.
19.	Ou HT, Chen YT, Liu YM, et al. Comparative cost-effectiveness of metformin-based dual therapies associated with risk of cardiovascular diseases among Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes: Evidence from a population-based national cohort in Taiwan. Diabetes Res Clin Pract, 2016, 116: 14-25.
20.	Guan H, Sheng Y, Guo W, et al. Cost-effectiveness of alectinib for patients with untreated ALK-positive non-small cell lung cancer in China. Adv Ther, 2019, 36(5): 1114-1125.
21.	Bai Y, Xu Y, Wu B. Cost-effectiveness and budget impact analysis of apatinib for advanced metastatic gastric cancer from the perspective of health insurance system. Gastroenterol Res Pract, 2017, 2017: 2816737.
22.	Chen HD, Zhou J, Wen F, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of apatinib treatment for chemotherapy-refractory advanced gastric cancer. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol, 2017, 143(2): 361-368.
23.	Xuan JW, Song RL, Xu GX, et al. Modeling the cost-effectiveness of ilaprazole versus omeprazole for the treatment of newly diagnosed duodenal ulcer patients in China. J Med Econ, 2016, 19(11): 1056-1060.
24.	Deng J, Gu S, Shao H, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of exenatide twice daily (BID) vs. insulin glargine once daily (QD) as add-on therapy in Chinese patients with Type 2 diabetes mellitus inadequately controlled by oral therapies. J Med Econ, 2015, 18(11): 974-989.
25.	Gu S, Wang X, Qiao Q, et al. Cost-effectiveness of exenatide twice daily vs. insulin glargine as add-on therapy to oral antidiabetic agents in patients with type 2 diabetes in China. Diabetes Obes Metab, 2017, 19(12): 1688-1697.
26.	Gong J, Wan Q, Shang J, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of anlotinib as third- or further-line treatment for relapsed small cell lung cancer (SCLC) in China. Adv Ther, 2021, 38(10): 5116-5126.
27.	Zhan M, Zheng H, Yang Y, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of maintenance olaparib in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer and a germline BRCA1/2 mutation based on the POLO trial. Cancer Manag Res, 2020, 12: 12919-12926.
28.	Li N, Zheng H, Huang Y, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of olaparib maintenance treatment for germline brca-mutated metastatic pancreatic cancer. Front Pharmacol, 2021, 12: 632818.
29.	Zhou H, Lu Y, Wu B, et al. Cost-effectiveness of omalizumab for the treatment of inadequately controlled severe allergic asthma in Chinese children. J Asthma, 2020, 57(1): 87-94.
30.	Li W, Qian L, Li W, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of different sequences of osimertinib administration for epidermal growth factor receptor-mutated non-small-cell lung cancer. Exp Ther Med, 2021, 21(4): 343.
31.	Li WQ, Li LY, Chai J, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of first-line treatments for advanced epidermal growth factor receptor-mutant non-small cell lung cancer patients. Cancer Med, 2021, 10(6): 1964-1974.
32.	Cai H, Zhang L, Li N, et al. Cost-effectiveness of osimertinib as first-line treatment and sequential therapy for EGFR mutation-positive non-small cell lung cancer in China. Clin Ther, 2019, 41(2): 280-290.
33.	Wu B, Gu X, Zhang Q. Cost-effectiveness of osimertinib for EGFR mutation-positive non-small cell lung cancer after progression following first-line EGFR TKI therapy. J Thorac Oncol, 2018, 13(2): 184-193.
34.	Rui M, Li H. Cost-effectiveness of osimertinib vs. docetaxel-bevacizumab in third-line treatment in EGFR T790M resistance mutation advanced non-small cell lung cancer in China. Clin Ther, 2020, 42(11): 2159-2170.
35.	Guan H, Liu G, Xie F, et al. Cost-effectiveness of osimertinib as a second-line treatment in patients with EGFR-mutated advanced non-small cell lung cancer in China. Clin Ther, 2019, 41(11): 2308-2320.
36.	Luo S, Weng X, Lin S, et al. Evaluation of osimertinib for advanced non-small cell lung cancer with leptomeningeal metastases: a cost-effectiveness and budget impact analysis. Int J Clin Pharm, 2022, 44(1): 192-200.
37.	Wu B, Gu X, Zhang Q, et al. Cost-effectiveness of osimertinib in treating newly diagnosed, advanced EGFR-mutation-positive non-small cell lung cancer. Oncologist, 2019, 24(3): 349-357.
38.	Li S, Li J, Peng L, et al. Cost-effectiveness of baricitinib for patients with moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis after methotrexate failed in China. Rheumatol Ther, 2021, 8(2): 863-876.
39.	Fan Q, Ming WK, Yip WY, et al. Cost-effectiveness of bedaquiline or delamanid plus background regimen for multidrug-resistant tuberculosis in a high-income intermediate burden city of China. Int J Infect Dis, 2019, 78: 44-49.
40.	Zheng H, Xie L, Zhan M, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of the addition of bevacizumab to chemotherapy as induction and maintenance therapy for metastatic non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer. Clin Transl Oncol, 2018, 20(3): 286-293.
41.	Zhan M, Zheng H, Xu T, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of additional bevacizumab to pemetrexed plus cisplatin for malignant pleural mesothelioma based on the MAPS trial. Lung Cancer, 2017, 110: 1-6.
42.	Wu B, Li J, Lin H, et al. Different strategies for the treatment of age-related macular degeneration in China: an economic evaluation. J Ophthalmol, 2016, 2016: 7689862.
43.	Li X, Li W, Hou L. A trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis of bevacizumab and chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone for advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer in China. Value Health Reg Issues, 2019, 18: 1-7.
44.	Zhang PF, Wen F, Zhou J, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of capecitabine plus bevacizumab versus capecitabine alone in elderly patients with previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer from Chinese societal perspective. Clin Transl Oncol, 2020, 22(1): 103-110.
45.	Chen Z, Zhan M, Tian F, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of the addition of bevacizumab to temozolomide therapy for the treatment of unresected glioblastoma. Oncol Lett, 2020, 19(1): 424-430.
46.	Cai X, Shi L, Yang W, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of dapagliflozin treatment versus metformin treatment in Chinese population with type 2 diabetes. J Med Econ, 2019, 22(4): 336-343.
47.	Shao H, Zhai S, Zou D, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of dapagliflozin versus glimepiride as monotherapy in a Chinese population with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Curr Med Res Opin, 2017, 33(2): 359-369.
48.	Nian H, Wan X, Ma J, et al. Economic evaluation of dapagliflozin versus metformin in Chinese patients whose diabetes is inadequately controlled with diet and exercise. Cost Eff Resour Alloc, 2020, 18: 12.
49.	Gu S, Mu Y, Zhai S, et al. Cost-Effectiveness of dapagliflozin versus acarbose as a monotherapy in type 2 diabetes in China. PLoS One, 2016, 11(11): e0165629.
50.	Jiang Y, Zheng R, Sang H. Cost-effectiveness of adding SGLT2 inhibitors to standard treatment for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction patients in China. Front Pharmacol, 2021, 12: 733681.
51.	Yao Y, Zhang R, An T, et al. Cost-effectiveness of adding dapagliflozin to standard treatment for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction patients in China. ESC Heart Fail, 2020, 7(6): 3582-3592.
52.	Wang S, Peng L, Li J, et al. A trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis of erlotinib alone versus platinum-based doublet chemotherapy as first-line therapy for Eastern Asian nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer. PLoS One, 2013, 8(3): e55917.
53.	Men P, Liu T, Zhai S. Empagliflozin in type 2 diabetes mellitus patients with high cardiovascular risk: a model-based cost-utility analysis in China. Diabetes Metab Syndr Obes, 2020, 13: 2823-2831.
54.	Ramos M, Men P, Wang X, et al. Cost-effectiveness of empagliflozin in patients with type 2 diabetes and established cardiovascular disease in China. Cost Eff Resour Alloc, 2021, 19(1): 46.
55.	Salem A, Men P, Ramos M, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of empagliflozin compared with glimepiride in patients with Type 2 diabetes in China. J Comp Eff Res, 2021, 10(6): 469-480.
56.	Zhang PF, Xie D, Li Q. Adding enzalutamide to first-line treatment for metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Front Public Health, 2021, 9: 608375.
57.	Peng Z, Hou X, Huang Y, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of fruquintinib for metastatic colorectal cancer third-line treatment in China. BMC Cancer, 2020, 20(1): 990.
58.	Guan X, Li H, Xiong X, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of fruquintinib versus regorafenib as the third-line therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer in China. J Med Econ, 2021, 24(1): 339-344.
59.	Zhang PF, Xie D, Li Q. Cost-effectiveness analysis of fruquintinib as third-line treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Tumori, 2020, 106(5): 400-405.
60.	Ding H, Fang L, Xin W, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of fulvestrant versus anastrozole as first-line treatment for hormone receptor-positive advanced breast cancer. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl), 2017, 26(6): 1-17.
61.	Huang X, Weng X, Lin S, et al. Half-dose fulvestrant plus anastrozole as a first-line treatment for hormone receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer: a cost-effectiveness analysis. BMJ Open, 2020, 10(8): e036107.
62.	Hou X, Wan X, Wu B. Cost-effectiveness of canagliflozin versus dapagliflozin added to metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes in China. Front Pharmacol, 2019, 10: 480.
63.	Cai H, Xu B, Li N, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of camrelizumab versus chemotherapy as second-line treatment of advanced or metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Front Pharmacol, 2021, 12: 732912.
64.	Lin YT, Chen Y, Liu TX, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of camrelizumab immunotherapy versus docetaxel or irinotecan chemotherapy as second-line therapy for advanced or metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Cancer Manag Res, 2021, 13: 8219-8230.
65.	Qiao L, Zhou Z, Zeng X, et al. Cost-effectiveness of domestic PD-1 inhibitor camrelizumab combined with chemotherapy in the first-line treatment of advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer in China. Front Pharmacol, 2021, 12: 728440.
66.	Zhang Q, Wu P, He X, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of camrelizumab vs. placebo added to chemotherapy as first-line therapy for advanced or metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma in China. Front Oncol, 2021, 11: 790373.
67.	Xiang G, Gu L, Chen X, et al. Economic evaluation of first-line camrelizumab for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer in China. Front Public Health, 2021, 9: 743558.
68.	Chen R, Wu B. Cost-effectiveness of intravitreal conbercept versus other treatments for wet age-related macular degeneration. Ann Transl Med, 2020, 8(15): 939.
69.	Cui Z, Zhou W, Chang Q, et al. Cost-effectiveness of conbercept vs. ranibizumab for age-related macular degeneration, diabetic macular edema, and pathological myopia:population-based cohort study and Markov model. Front Med (Lausanne), 2021, 8: 750132.
70.	Huang M, Tian Y, He M, et al. Crizotinib versus chemotherapy: a real-world cost-effectiveness study in China. J Comp Eff Res, 2020, 9(2): 93-102.
71.	Chen GF, Wei L, Chen J, et al. Will sofosbuvir/ledipasvir (harvoni) be cost-effective and affordable for Chinese patients infected with hepatitis C virus. An economic analysis using real-world data. PLoS One, 2016, 11(6): e0155934.
72.	Zhang PF, Xie D, Wen F, et al. Lenalidomide plus rituximab vs. rituximab alone in relapsed or refractory indolent lymphoma:A cost-effectiveness analysis. Cancer Med, 2020, 9(15): 5312-5319.
73.	Zeng F, Wang M, Zhang D. Cost-effectiveness analysis of 5% lidocaine-medicated plaster compared with pregabalin for the treatment of post-herpetic neuralgia in China. Ann Palliat Med, 2021, 10(4): 4493-4501.
74.	Gao L, Zhao FL, Li SC. Cost-utility analysis of liraglutide versus glimepiride as add-on to metformin in type 2 diabetes patients in China. Int J Technol Assess Health Care, 2012, 28(4): 436-444.
75.	Zhang X, Liu S, Li Y, et al. Long-term effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of metformin combined with liraglutide or exenatide for type 2 diabetes mellitus based on the CORE diabetes model study. PLoS One, 2016, 11(6): e0156393.
76.	Cai H, Zhang L, Li N, et al. Lenvatinib versus sorafenib for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: a cost-effectiveness analysis. J Comp Eff Res, 2020, 9(8): 553-562.
77.	Li N, Zheng B, Cai HF, et al. Cost effectiveness of imatinib, dasatinib, and nilotinib as first-line treatment for chronic-phase chronic myeloid leukemia in China. Clin Drug Investig, 2018, 38(1): 79-86.
78.	Wu B, Ye M, Chen H, et al. Costs of trastuzumab in combination with chemotherapy for HER2-positive advanced gastric or gastroesophageal junction cancer: an economic evaluation in the Chinese context. Clin Ther, 2012, 34(2): 468-479.
79.	Peng Y, Ma F, Tan C, et al. Model-based economic evaluation of ceritinib and platinum-based chemotherapy as first-line treatments for advanced non-small cell lung cancer in China. Adv Ther, 2019, 36(11): 3047-3058.
80.	Li H, Lai L, Wu B. Cost effectiveness of ceritinib and alectinib versus crizotinib in first-line anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. Clin Drug Investig, 2020, 40(2): 183-189.
81.	Liu M, Zhang L, Huang Q, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of ceritinib and alectinib versus crizotinib in the treatment of anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Cancer Manag Res, 2019, 11: 9195-9202.
82.	Yang L, Chuen Tan S, Chen C, et al. Economic evaluation of sevelamer versus calcium-based binders in treating hyperphosphatemia among patients with end-stage renal disease in China. Clin Ther, 2016, 38(11): 2459-2467.
83.	Zhang P, Yang Y, Wen F, et al. Cost-effectiveness of sorafenib as a first-line treatment for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol, 2015, 27(7): 853-859.
84.	Chen S, Peng Z, Wei M, et al. Sorafenib versus transarterial chemoembolization for advanced-stage hepatocellular carcinoma: a cost-effectiveness analysis. BMC Cancer, 2018, 18(1): 392.
85.	Zhao RC, Zhou J, Wei YG, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of transcatheter arterial chemoembolization with or without sorafenib for the treatment of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatobiliary Pancreat Dis Int, 2017, 16(5): 493-498.
86.	Wei X, Zhao J, Yang L. Cost-effectiveness of new antiviral treatments for non-genotype 1 hepatitis C virus infection in China: a societal perspective. BMJ Glob Health, 2020, 5(11): e003194.
87.	Xu Y, Mao N, Chirikov V, et al. Cost-effectiveness of teriflunomide compared to interferon beta-1b for relapsing multiple sclerosis patients in China. Clin Drug Investig, 2019, 39(3): 331-340.
88.	Tian L, Xiong X, Guo Q, et al. Cost-effectiveness of tofacitinib for patients with moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis in China. Pharmacoeconomics, 2020, 38(12): 1345-1358.
89.	Zhou T, Sheng Y, Guan H. Cost-effectiveness of vedolizumab in the treatment of moderate-to-severe Crohn's disease in China. Adv Ther, 2021, 38(8): 4233-4245.
90.	Zhou T, Sheng Y, Guan H, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of vedolizumab compared with infliximab in anti-tnf-α-na?ve patients with moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis in China. Front Public Health, 2021, 9: 704889.
91.	Wu B, Yao Y, Zhang K, et al. RAS testing and cetuximab treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer: a cost-effectiveness analysis in a setting with limited health resources. Oncotarget, 2017, 8(41): 71164-71172.
92.	Han J, Xiao D, Tan C, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of first-line FOLFIRI combined with cetuximab or bevacizumab in patients with RAS wild-type left-sided metastatic colorectal cancer. Cancer Control, 2020, 27(1): 1073274820902271.
93.	Bai L, Zhang P, Zhou K, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of first-line cetuximab plus leucovorin, fluorouracil, and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX-4) versus FOLFOX-4 in patients with RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer. Cancer Manag Res, 2019, 11: 10419-10426.
94.	Wang H, Huang L, Gao P, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of cetuximab combined with chemotherapy as a first-line treatment for patients with RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer based on the TAILOR trial. BMJ Open, 2020, 10(2): e030738.
95.	Lang Y, Dong D. Cetuximab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone in recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Cancer Manag Res, 2020, 12: 11383-11390.
96.	Cai H, Zhang L, Li N, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis on binary/triple therapy on the basis of ixazomib or bortezomib for refractory or relapsed multiple myeloma. Leuk Lymphoma, 2019, 60(12): 2951-2959.
97.	Wu B, Wilson A, Wang FF, et al. Cost effectiveness of different treatment strategies in the treatment of patients with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis in china. PLoS One, 2012, 7(10): e47373.
98.	Shi JH, Luo L, Chen XL, et al. Real-world cost-effectiveness associated with infliximab maintenance therapy for moderate to severe Crohn's disease in China. World J Gastroenterol, 2020, 26(41): 6455-6474.
99.	Li J, Wen Z, Cai A, et al. Real-world cost-effectiveness of infliximab for moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis in a medium-sized city of China. J Comp Eff Res, 2017, 6(3): 205-218.
100.	Rui M, Wang Y, Fei Z, et al. Economic evaluation of rituximab + recombinant human thrombopoietin vs. rituximab for the treatment of second-line idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura in China. Front Med (Lausanne), 2021, 8: 657539.
101.	Wu Q, Wang X, Zhang M, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of bevacizumab plus paclitaxel versus bevacizumab plus capecitabine for HER2-negative locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer. Oncol Res Treat, 2020, 43(4): 153-159.
102.	郭婉婕, 陳文東, 官海靜, 等. 注射用紫杉醇(白蛋白結合型)治療轉移性乳腺癌的成本-效用分析. 中國藥物經濟學, 2019, 14(4): 13-23.
103.	陶立波, 王芳旭. 醫保準入后德谷門冬雙胰島素對比甘精胰島素治療口服降糖藥控制不佳的中國2型糖尿病患者的成本-效果. 藥品評價, 2021, 18(4): 193-196.
104.	王芳旭, 張磊, 陶立波. 德谷門冬雙胰島素對比甘精胰島素治療口服降糖藥控制不佳的中國2型糖尿病患者的成本-效果. 中國藥物經濟學, 2020, 15(7): 24-30.
105.	張晉, 任立紅, 劉冬, 等. 安羅替尼治療晚期非小細胞肺癌的成本效果分析. 中國新藥與臨床雜志, 2020, 39(6): 380-384.
106.	丁海櫻, 孔思思, 孫嬌, 等. 鹽酸安羅替尼用于晚期非小細胞肺癌治療的成本效用分析. 衛生經濟研究, 2020, 37(5): 19-22.
107.	占美, 吳斌, 吳逢波, 等. 安羅替尼治療晚期非小細胞肺癌的成本-效果分析. 醫藥導報, 2020, 39(2): 172-175.
108.	管欣, 張瑤, 李洪超. 注射用尤瑞克林與丁苯酞氯化鈉注射液治療輕-中度急性缺血性腦卒中的成本效用分析. 中國新藥雜志, 2020, 29(6): 715-720.
109.	張力, 周彩存, 趙軍, 等. 阿來替尼一線治療中國ALK陽性晚期或轉移性非小細胞肺癌的成本效果研究. 中國醫療保險, 2019, (12): 56-62.
110.	何江江, 張崖冰, 高潤霖, 等. 替格瑞洛與氯吡格雷治療急性冠脈綜合征的藥物經濟學分析. 中國藥物經濟學, 2013, (3): 27-32.
111.	劉家穩, 萬小敏, 劉健, 等. 標準一線化療增加西妥昔單抗在晚期非小細胞肺癌患者中的成本-效果分析. 中南藥學, 2013, 11(10): 778-780+788.
112.	官海靜, 劉國恩, 盛亞楠, 等. 奧希替尼治療非小細胞肺癌的成本效果研究. 中國醫療保險, 2018, 5(5): 47-54.
113.	岳毅樺, 猶月, 彭元求. 奧希替尼一線治療EGFR突變局部晚期或轉移性非小細胞肺癌的成本效果分析. 中國新藥與臨床雜志, 2021, 40(3): 205-209.
114.	康朔, 賈海紅, 劉國強. 奧希替尼一線治療EGFR突變陽性的局部晚期或轉移性非小細胞肺癌的成本-效用分析. 中國藥房, 2021, 32(12): 1492-1496.
115.	肖強, 劉紅艷. 利拉魯肽和西格列汀在治療2型糖尿病中的長期益處對比. 中國醫院藥學雜志, 2018, 38(11): 1207-1211,1235.
116.	卞元清, 王瑞, 潘巍, 等. 伊沙佐米治療復發/難治性骨髓瘤的成本-效用分析. 中國藥物經濟學, 2021, 16(8): 11-16.
117.	陳平鈺, 馬愛霞. 艾爾巴韋/格拉瑞韋片治療慢性丙型肝炎的成本效果分析. 中國新藥雜志, 2020, 29(4): 470-476.
118.	姚佑楠, 張榮成, 安濤, 等. 沙庫巴曲纈沙坦和依那普利在急性失代償性射血分數減低型心力衰竭住院患者中長期使用的成本-效用. 中國藥物經濟學, 2020, 15(9): 5-11,16.
119.	王皓, 曾晨欣, 李俐, 等. 奧希替尼和吉非替尼/厄洛替尼一線治療EGFR突變陽性非小細胞肺癌的成本-效果分析. 醫藥導報, 2020, 39(12): 1689-1696.
120.	施霞, 朱秋燕. 阿法替尼和吉非替尼一線治療EGFR突變陽性非小細胞肺癌的成本效用分析. 中國現代應用藥學, 2019, 36(21): 2701-2706.
121.	陳平鈺, 謝青. 艾爾巴韋格拉瑞韋與索磷布韋維帕他韋治療丙型肝炎的成本-效果分析. 中國藥物經濟學, 2019, 14(7): 14-18,26.
122.	張龍鳳, 黃棋舒, 邱玲玲, 等. 塞瑞替尼與阿來替尼一線治療ALK陽性晚期非小細胞肺癌的成本效用分析. 海峽藥學, 2019, 31(8): 86-89.
123.	范長生, 吳久鴻. 波生坦片治療肺動脈高壓成本-效用分析. 藥品評價, 2016, 13(8): 13-19,62.
124.	胡春陽, 韓晟, 劉方, 等. 利拉魯肽與羅格列酮、格列美脲、艾塞那肽和甘精胰島素治療2型糖尿病患者的短期成本-效果比較. 中國藥物經濟學, 2014, 9(4): 9-13.
125.	Shi G, Park SH, Ren H, et al. Cost analysis for different sequential treatment regimens for metastatic renal cell carcinoma in China. J Med Econ, 2018, 21(12): 1150-1158.
126.	Lu X, Smare C, Kambili C, et al. Health outcomes of bedaquiline in the treatment of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis in selected high burden countries. BMC Health Serv Res, 2017, 17(1): 87.
127.	Zhang D, Li X, Ding J, et al. Value of perampanel as adjunctive treatment for partial-onset seizures in epilepsy: cost-effectiveness and budget impact analysis. front public health, 2021, 9: 670108.
128.	Zhou X, Xia J, Mao J, et al. Real-world outcome and healthcare costs of relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma: A retrospective analysis from the Chinese experience. Hematology, 2016, 21(5): 280-286.
129.	Tang L, Yang XF, Qiao M, et al. Posaconazole vs. voriconazole in the prevention of invasive fungal diseases in patients with haematological malignancies:A retrospective study. J Mycol Med, 2018, 28(2): 379-383.
130.	劉國強, 楊警囡. 司維拉姆治療慢性腎臟病高磷血癥的藥物經濟學系統評價. 中國藥物經濟學, 2021, 16(6): 26-30,38.
131.	米雪, 蘇雪龍, 孫維紅, 等. 奧希替尼治療晚期非小細胞肺癌的藥物經濟學系統評價. 中國藥房, 2021, 32(6): 713-719.
132.	陳幸, 王曉莉. 帕羅西汀對比度洛西汀治療抑郁癥的系統評價及藥物經濟學分析. 中國醫藥導報, 2021, 18(9): 140-144.
133.	楊璐, 孫路路, 王淑梅. 阿卡波糖對比二甲雙胍治療2型糖尿病療效與安全性的系統評價及藥物經濟學分析. 中國藥房, 2015, 26(24): 3371-3374.
134.	丁海櫻, 童瑩慧, 辛文秀, 等. 貝伐珠單抗用于卵巢癌治療的經濟學研究綜述. 中國現代應用藥學, 2017, 34(11): 1621-1627.
135.	孫艷坤, 劉國恩. 貝伐珠單抗治療轉移性結直腸癌的效果與成本研究綜述. 中國藥物經濟學, 2014, 9(1): 9-15.
136.	劉潔, 萬楚川, 陳磊, 等. 丹參酮Ⅱ_(A)磺酸鈉治療冠心病心絞痛的藥物經濟學評價. 中國藥房, 2020, 31(18): 2240-2246.
137.	萬小敏, 彭六保, 曾小慧, 等. 甘草酸單銨半胱氨酸改善病毒性肝炎患者肝功能異常的藥物經濟學評價. 中國藥物經濟學, 2020, 15(7): 5-9,30.
138.	陳平鈺, 李洪超, 馬愛霞. 艾爾巴韋/格拉瑞韋片治療基因1b型慢性丙型肝炎的經濟學評價. 中國循證醫學雜志, 2018, 18(12): 1352-1358.
139.	Xie F, Zhou T. Industry sponsorship bias in cost effectiveness analysis: registry based analysis. BMJ, 2022, 377: e069573.
140.	顏建周, 董心月, 馬旭鋒, 等. 英國價值定價理念對我國醫保藥品報銷政策的啟示. 中國衛生政策研究, 2020, 13(1): 62-69.
141.	Claxton K, Sculpher M, Carroll S. Value-based pricing for pharmaceuticals: its role, specification and prospects in a newly devolved NHS. York, UK:Centre for Health Economics, University of York, 2011: 60.
142.	Department of Health and Social Care. Pharmaceutical price regulation scheme 2014, 2013-12-03. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/pharmaceutical-price-regulation-scheme-2014.
143.	張心悅, 丁錦希. 英國腫瘤藥物的衛生技術評估評價研究及其啟示. 中國藥物經濟學, 2021, 16(5): 27-32.
144.	董心月, 張伶俐, 邵蓉. 英國價值定價理念與藥品補償制度的銜接及啟示. 衛生經濟研究, 2018, (10): 54-57.

1. 李凱悅, 劉輝, 蔣倩. 歷年國家醫保談判藥品概況與分析—抗腫瘤藥品專題. 腫瘤藥學, 2021, 11(2): 229-235.
2. Hill-McManus D, Marshall S, Liu J, et al. Linked pharmacometric-pharmacoeconomic modeling and simulation in clinical drug development. Clin Pharmacol Ther, 2021, 110(1): 49-63.
3. Barnieh L, Manns B, Harris A, et al. A synthesis of drug reimbursement decision-making processes in organisation for economic co-operation and development countries. Value Health, 2014, 17(1): 98-108.
4. Commonwealth Department of Human Services and Health. Guidelines for the pharmaceutical industry on preparation of submissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee: including major submissions involving economic analyses. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service, 1995.
5. Cairns J. Providing guidance to the NHS: The Scottish medicines consortium and the national institute for clinical excellence compared. Health Policy, 2006, 76(2): 134-143.
6. Canadian Coordinating Ofﬁce for Health Technology Assessment. Guidelines for economic evaluation of pharmacoeconomics. Ottawa: CCOHTA, 1994.
7. Ofﬁce of Technology Assessment. Health care technology and its assessment in eight countries. Washington (DC): US Congress, Ofﬁce of Technology Assessment, 1995.
8. Drummond M. Pharmacoeconomics: friend or foe. Ann Rheum Dis, 2006, 65(Suppl 3): iii44-iii47.
9. 國務院辦公廳. 關于印發“十三五”深化醫藥衛生體制改革規劃的通知, 2016-12-27. Available at: http://www.gov.cn/zhengce/content/2017-01/09/content_5158053.htm.
10. 國務院辦公廳. 關于改革完善醫療衛生行業綜合監管制度的指導意見. 中國衛生監督雜志, 2018, 25(5): 414-418.
11. 國家醫保局. 2019年國家醫保藥品目錄調整工作方案, 2019-04-17. Available at: http://www.gov.cn/xinwen/2019-04/19/content_5384349.htm.
12. 國家醫保局. 基本醫療保險用藥管理暫行辦法, 2020-07-30. Available at: http://www.gov.cn/zhengce/zhengceku/2020-08/04/content_5532409.htm.
13. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ, 2009, 339: b2535.
14. Husereau D, Drummond M, Augustovski F, et al. Consolidated health economic evaluation reporting standards 2022 (cheers 2022) statement: updated reporting guidance for health economic evaluations. Value Health, 2022, 25(1): 3-9.
15. Ming J, Zhang Y, Xu X, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of intravitreal aflibercept in the treatment of diabetic macular edema in China. J Comp Eff Res, 2020, 9(3): 161-175.
16. Gu X, Zhang Q, Chu YB, et al. Cost-effectiveness of afatinib, gefitinib, erlotinib and pemetrexed-based chemotherapy as first-line treatments for advanced non-small cell lung cancer in China. Lung Cancer, 2019, 127: 84-89.
17. Zhu J, He W, Ye M, et al. Cost-effectiveness of afatinib and erlotinib as second-line treatments for advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the lung. Future Oncol, 2018, 14(27): 2833-2840.
18. Wang H, Zeng C, Li X, et al. Cost-utility of afatinib and gefitinib as first-line treatment for EGFR-mutated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. Future Oncol, 2019, 15(2): 181-191.
19. Ou HT, Chen YT, Liu YM, et al. Comparative cost-effectiveness of metformin-based dual therapies associated with risk of cardiovascular diseases among Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes: Evidence from a population-based national cohort in Taiwan. Diabetes Res Clin Pract, 2016, 116: 14-25.
20. Guan H, Sheng Y, Guo W, et al. Cost-effectiveness of alectinib for patients with untreated ALK-positive non-small cell lung cancer in China. Adv Ther, 2019, 36(5): 1114-1125.
21. Bai Y, Xu Y, Wu B. Cost-effectiveness and budget impact analysis of apatinib for advanced metastatic gastric cancer from the perspective of health insurance system. Gastroenterol Res Pract, 2017, 2017: 2816737.
22. Chen HD, Zhou J, Wen F, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of apatinib treatment for chemotherapy-refractory advanced gastric cancer. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol, 2017, 143(2): 361-368.
23. Xuan JW, Song RL, Xu GX, et al. Modeling the cost-effectiveness of ilaprazole versus omeprazole for the treatment of newly diagnosed duodenal ulcer patients in China. J Med Econ, 2016, 19(11): 1056-1060.
24. Deng J, Gu S, Shao H, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of exenatide twice daily (BID) vs. insulin glargine once daily (QD) as add-on therapy in Chinese patients with Type 2 diabetes mellitus inadequately controlled by oral therapies. J Med Econ, 2015, 18(11): 974-989.
25. Gu S, Wang X, Qiao Q, et al. Cost-effectiveness of exenatide twice daily vs. insulin glargine as add-on therapy to oral antidiabetic agents in patients with type 2 diabetes in China. Diabetes Obes Metab, 2017, 19(12): 1688-1697.
26. Gong J, Wan Q, Shang J, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of anlotinib as third- or further-line treatment for relapsed small cell lung cancer (SCLC) in China. Adv Ther, 2021, 38(10): 5116-5126.
27. Zhan M, Zheng H, Yang Y, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of maintenance olaparib in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer and a germline BRCA1/2 mutation based on the POLO trial. Cancer Manag Res, 2020, 12: 12919-12926.
28. Li N, Zheng H, Huang Y, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of olaparib maintenance treatment for germline brca-mutated metastatic pancreatic cancer. Front Pharmacol, 2021, 12: 632818.
29. Zhou H, Lu Y, Wu B, et al. Cost-effectiveness of omalizumab for the treatment of inadequately controlled severe allergic asthma in Chinese children. J Asthma, 2020, 57(1): 87-94.
30. Li W, Qian L, Li W, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of different sequences of osimertinib administration for epidermal growth factor receptor-mutated non-small-cell lung cancer. Exp Ther Med, 2021, 21(4): 343.
31. Li WQ, Li LY, Chai J, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of first-line treatments for advanced epidermal growth factor receptor-mutant non-small cell lung cancer patients. Cancer Med, 2021, 10(6): 1964-1974.
32. Cai H, Zhang L, Li N, et al. Cost-effectiveness of osimertinib as first-line treatment and sequential therapy for EGFR mutation-positive non-small cell lung cancer in China. Clin Ther, 2019, 41(2): 280-290.
33. Wu B, Gu X, Zhang Q. Cost-effectiveness of osimertinib for EGFR mutation-positive non-small cell lung cancer after progression following first-line EGFR TKI therapy. J Thorac Oncol, 2018, 13(2): 184-193.
34. Rui M, Li H. Cost-effectiveness of osimertinib vs. docetaxel-bevacizumab in third-line treatment in EGFR T790M resistance mutation advanced non-small cell lung cancer in China. Clin Ther, 2020, 42(11): 2159-2170.
35. Guan H, Liu G, Xie F, et al. Cost-effectiveness of osimertinib as a second-line treatment in patients with EGFR-mutated advanced non-small cell lung cancer in China. Clin Ther, 2019, 41(11): 2308-2320.
36. Luo S, Weng X, Lin S, et al. Evaluation of osimertinib for advanced non-small cell lung cancer with leptomeningeal metastases: a cost-effectiveness and budget impact analysis. Int J Clin Pharm, 2022, 44(1): 192-200.
37. Wu B, Gu X, Zhang Q, et al. Cost-effectiveness of osimertinib in treating newly diagnosed, advanced EGFR-mutation-positive non-small cell lung cancer. Oncologist, 2019, 24(3): 349-357.
38. Li S, Li J, Peng L, et al. Cost-effectiveness of baricitinib for patients with moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis after methotrexate failed in China. Rheumatol Ther, 2021, 8(2): 863-876.
39. Fan Q, Ming WK, Yip WY, et al. Cost-effectiveness of bedaquiline or delamanid plus background regimen for multidrug-resistant tuberculosis in a high-income intermediate burden city of China. Int J Infect Dis, 2019, 78: 44-49.
40. Zheng H, Xie L, Zhan M, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of the addition of bevacizumab to chemotherapy as induction and maintenance therapy for metastatic non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer. Clin Transl Oncol, 2018, 20(3): 286-293.
41. Zhan M, Zheng H, Xu T, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of additional bevacizumab to pemetrexed plus cisplatin for malignant pleural mesothelioma based on the MAPS trial. Lung Cancer, 2017, 110: 1-6.
42. Wu B, Li J, Lin H, et al. Different strategies for the treatment of age-related macular degeneration in China: an economic evaluation. J Ophthalmol, 2016, 2016: 7689862.
43. Li X, Li W, Hou L. A trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis of bevacizumab and chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone for advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer in China. Value Health Reg Issues, 2019, 18: 1-7.
44. Zhang PF, Wen F, Zhou J, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of capecitabine plus bevacizumab versus capecitabine alone in elderly patients with previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer from Chinese societal perspective. Clin Transl Oncol, 2020, 22(1): 103-110.
45. Chen Z, Zhan M, Tian F, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of the addition of bevacizumab to temozolomide therapy for the treatment of unresected glioblastoma. Oncol Lett, 2020, 19(1): 424-430.
46. Cai X, Shi L, Yang W, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of dapagliflozin treatment versus metformin treatment in Chinese population with type 2 diabetes. J Med Econ, 2019, 22(4): 336-343.
47. Shao H, Zhai S, Zou D, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of dapagliflozin versus glimepiride as monotherapy in a Chinese population with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Curr Med Res Opin, 2017, 33(2): 359-369.
48. Nian H, Wan X, Ma J, et al. Economic evaluation of dapagliflozin versus metformin in Chinese patients whose diabetes is inadequately controlled with diet and exercise. Cost Eff Resour Alloc, 2020, 18: 12.
49. Gu S, Mu Y, Zhai S, et al. Cost-Effectiveness of dapagliflozin versus acarbose as a monotherapy in type 2 diabetes in China. PLoS One, 2016, 11(11): e0165629.
50. Jiang Y, Zheng R, Sang H. Cost-effectiveness of adding SGLT2 inhibitors to standard treatment for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction patients in China. Front Pharmacol, 2021, 12: 733681.
51. Yao Y, Zhang R, An T, et al. Cost-effectiveness of adding dapagliflozin to standard treatment for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction patients in China. ESC Heart Fail, 2020, 7(6): 3582-3592.
52. Wang S, Peng L, Li J, et al. A trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis of erlotinib alone versus platinum-based doublet chemotherapy as first-line therapy for Eastern Asian nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer. PLoS One, 2013, 8(3): e55917.
53. Men P, Liu T, Zhai S. Empagliflozin in type 2 diabetes mellitus patients with high cardiovascular risk: a model-based cost-utility analysis in China. Diabetes Metab Syndr Obes, 2020, 13: 2823-2831.
54. Ramos M, Men P, Wang X, et al. Cost-effectiveness of empagliflozin in patients with type 2 diabetes and established cardiovascular disease in China. Cost Eff Resour Alloc, 2021, 19(1): 46.
55. Salem A, Men P, Ramos M, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of empagliflozin compared with glimepiride in patients with Type 2 diabetes in China. J Comp Eff Res, 2021, 10(6): 469-480.
56. Zhang PF, Xie D, Li Q. Adding enzalutamide to first-line treatment for metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Front Public Health, 2021, 9: 608375.
57. Peng Z, Hou X, Huang Y, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of fruquintinib for metastatic colorectal cancer third-line treatment in China. BMC Cancer, 2020, 20(1): 990.
58. Guan X, Li H, Xiong X, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of fruquintinib versus regorafenib as the third-line therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer in China. J Med Econ, 2021, 24(1): 339-344.
59. Zhang PF, Xie D, Li Q. Cost-effectiveness analysis of fruquintinib as third-line treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Tumori, 2020, 106(5): 400-405.
60. Ding H, Fang L, Xin W, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of fulvestrant versus anastrozole as first-line treatment for hormone receptor-positive advanced breast cancer. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl), 2017, 26(6): 1-17.
61. Huang X, Weng X, Lin S, et al. Half-dose fulvestrant plus anastrozole as a first-line treatment for hormone receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer: a cost-effectiveness analysis. BMJ Open, 2020, 10(8): e036107.
62. Hou X, Wan X, Wu B. Cost-effectiveness of canagliflozin versus dapagliflozin added to metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes in China. Front Pharmacol, 2019, 10: 480.
63. Cai H, Xu B, Li N, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of camrelizumab versus chemotherapy as second-line treatment of advanced or metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Front Pharmacol, 2021, 12: 732912.
64. Lin YT, Chen Y, Liu TX, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of camrelizumab immunotherapy versus docetaxel or irinotecan chemotherapy as second-line therapy for advanced or metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Cancer Manag Res, 2021, 13: 8219-8230.
65. Qiao L, Zhou Z, Zeng X, et al. Cost-effectiveness of domestic PD-1 inhibitor camrelizumab combined with chemotherapy in the first-line treatment of advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer in China. Front Pharmacol, 2021, 12: 728440.
66. Zhang Q, Wu P, He X, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of camrelizumab vs. placebo added to chemotherapy as first-line therapy for advanced or metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma in China. Front Oncol, 2021, 11: 790373.
67. Xiang G, Gu L, Chen X, et al. Economic evaluation of first-line camrelizumab for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer in China. Front Public Health, 2021, 9: 743558.
68. Chen R, Wu B. Cost-effectiveness of intravitreal conbercept versus other treatments for wet age-related macular degeneration. Ann Transl Med, 2020, 8(15): 939.
69. Cui Z, Zhou W, Chang Q, et al. Cost-effectiveness of conbercept vs. ranibizumab for age-related macular degeneration, diabetic macular edema, and pathological myopia:population-based cohort study and Markov model. Front Med (Lausanne), 2021, 8: 750132.
70. Huang M, Tian Y, He M, et al. Crizotinib versus chemotherapy: a real-world cost-effectiveness study in China. J Comp Eff Res, 2020, 9(2): 93-102.
71. Chen GF, Wei L, Chen J, et al. Will sofosbuvir/ledipasvir (harvoni) be cost-effective and affordable for Chinese patients infected with hepatitis C virus. An economic analysis using real-world data. PLoS One, 2016, 11(6): e0155934.
72. Zhang PF, Xie D, Wen F, et al. Lenalidomide plus rituximab vs. rituximab alone in relapsed or refractory indolent lymphoma:A cost-effectiveness analysis. Cancer Med, 2020, 9(15): 5312-5319.
73. Zeng F, Wang M, Zhang D. Cost-effectiveness analysis of 5% lidocaine-medicated plaster compared with pregabalin for the treatment of post-herpetic neuralgia in China. Ann Palliat Med, 2021, 10(4): 4493-4501.
74. Gao L, Zhao FL, Li SC. Cost-utility analysis of liraglutide versus glimepiride as add-on to metformin in type 2 diabetes patients in China. Int J Technol Assess Health Care, 2012, 28(4): 436-444.
75. Zhang X, Liu S, Li Y, et al. Long-term effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of metformin combined with liraglutide or exenatide for type 2 diabetes mellitus based on the CORE diabetes model study. PLoS One, 2016, 11(6): e0156393.
76. Cai H, Zhang L, Li N, et al. Lenvatinib versus sorafenib for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: a cost-effectiveness analysis. J Comp Eff Res, 2020, 9(8): 553-562.
77. Li N, Zheng B, Cai HF, et al. Cost effectiveness of imatinib, dasatinib, and nilotinib as first-line treatment for chronic-phase chronic myeloid leukemia in China. Clin Drug Investig, 2018, 38(1): 79-86.
78. Wu B, Ye M, Chen H, et al. Costs of trastuzumab in combination with chemotherapy for HER2-positive advanced gastric or gastroesophageal junction cancer: an economic evaluation in the Chinese context. Clin Ther, 2012, 34(2): 468-479.
79. Peng Y, Ma F, Tan C, et al. Model-based economic evaluation of ceritinib and platinum-based chemotherapy as first-line treatments for advanced non-small cell lung cancer in China. Adv Ther, 2019, 36(11): 3047-3058.
80. Li H, Lai L, Wu B. Cost effectiveness of ceritinib and alectinib versus crizotinib in first-line anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. Clin Drug Investig, 2020, 40(2): 183-189.
81. Liu M, Zhang L, Huang Q, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of ceritinib and alectinib versus crizotinib in the treatment of anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Cancer Manag Res, 2019, 11: 9195-9202.
82. Yang L, Chuen Tan S, Chen C, et al. Economic evaluation of sevelamer versus calcium-based binders in treating hyperphosphatemia among patients with end-stage renal disease in China. Clin Ther, 2016, 38(11): 2459-2467.
83. Zhang P, Yang Y, Wen F, et al. Cost-effectiveness of sorafenib as a first-line treatment for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol, 2015, 27(7): 853-859.
84. Chen S, Peng Z, Wei M, et al. Sorafenib versus transarterial chemoembolization for advanced-stage hepatocellular carcinoma: a cost-effectiveness analysis. BMC Cancer, 2018, 18(1): 392.
85. Zhao RC, Zhou J, Wei YG, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of transcatheter arterial chemoembolization with or without sorafenib for the treatment of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatobiliary Pancreat Dis Int, 2017, 16(5): 493-498.
86. Wei X, Zhao J, Yang L. Cost-effectiveness of new antiviral treatments for non-genotype 1 hepatitis C virus infection in China: a societal perspective. BMJ Glob Health, 2020, 5(11): e003194.
87. Xu Y, Mao N, Chirikov V, et al. Cost-effectiveness of teriflunomide compared to interferon beta-1b for relapsing multiple sclerosis patients in China. Clin Drug Investig, 2019, 39(3): 331-340.
88. Tian L, Xiong X, Guo Q, et al. Cost-effectiveness of tofacitinib for patients with moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis in China. Pharmacoeconomics, 2020, 38(12): 1345-1358.
89. Zhou T, Sheng Y, Guan H. Cost-effectiveness of vedolizumab in the treatment of moderate-to-severe Crohn's disease in China. Adv Ther, 2021, 38(8): 4233-4245.
90. Zhou T, Sheng Y, Guan H, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of vedolizumab compared with infliximab in anti-tnf-α-na?ve patients with moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis in China. Front Public Health, 2021, 9: 704889.
91. Wu B, Yao Y, Zhang K, et al. RAS testing and cetuximab treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer: a cost-effectiveness analysis in a setting with limited health resources. Oncotarget, 2017, 8(41): 71164-71172.
92. Han J, Xiao D, Tan C, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of first-line FOLFIRI combined with cetuximab or bevacizumab in patients with RAS wild-type left-sided metastatic colorectal cancer. Cancer Control, 2020, 27(1): 1073274820902271.
93. Bai L, Zhang P, Zhou K, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of first-line cetuximab plus leucovorin, fluorouracil, and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX-4) versus FOLFOX-4 in patients with RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer. Cancer Manag Res, 2019, 11: 10419-10426.
94. Wang H, Huang L, Gao P, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of cetuximab combined with chemotherapy as a first-line treatment for patients with RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer based on the TAILOR trial. BMJ Open, 2020, 10(2): e030738.
95. Lang Y, Dong D. Cetuximab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone in recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Cancer Manag Res, 2020, 12: 11383-11390.
96. Cai H, Zhang L, Li N, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis on binary/triple therapy on the basis of ixazomib or bortezomib for refractory or relapsed multiple myeloma. Leuk Lymphoma, 2019, 60(12): 2951-2959.
97. Wu B, Wilson A, Wang FF, et al. Cost effectiveness of different treatment strategies in the treatment of patients with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis in china. PLoS One, 2012, 7(10): e47373.
98. Shi JH, Luo L, Chen XL, et al. Real-world cost-effectiveness associated with infliximab maintenance therapy for moderate to severe Crohn's disease in China. World J Gastroenterol, 2020, 26(41): 6455-6474.
99. Li J, Wen Z, Cai A, et al. Real-world cost-effectiveness of infliximab for moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis in a medium-sized city of China. J Comp Eff Res, 2017, 6(3): 205-218.
100. Rui M, Wang Y, Fei Z, et al. Economic evaluation of rituximab + recombinant human thrombopoietin vs. rituximab for the treatment of second-line idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura in China. Front Med (Lausanne), 2021, 8: 657539.
101. Wu Q, Wang X, Zhang M, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of bevacizumab plus paclitaxel versus bevacizumab plus capecitabine for HER2-negative locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer. Oncol Res Treat, 2020, 43(4): 153-159.
102. 郭婉婕, 陳文東, 官海靜, 等. 注射用紫杉醇(白蛋白結合型)治療轉移性乳腺癌的成本-效用分析. 中國藥物經濟學, 2019, 14(4): 13-23.
103. 陶立波, 王芳旭. 醫保準入后德谷門冬雙胰島素對比甘精胰島素治療口服降糖藥控制不佳的中國2型糖尿病患者的成本-效果. 藥品評價, 2021, 18(4): 193-196.
104. 王芳旭, 張磊, 陶立波. 德谷門冬雙胰島素對比甘精胰島素治療口服降糖藥控制不佳的中國2型糖尿病患者的成本-效果. 中國藥物經濟學, 2020, 15(7): 24-30.
105. 張晉, 任立紅, 劉冬, 等. 安羅替尼治療晚期非小細胞肺癌的成本效果分析. 中國新藥與臨床雜志, 2020, 39(6): 380-384.
106. 丁海櫻, 孔思思, 孫嬌, 等. 鹽酸安羅替尼用于晚期非小細胞肺癌治療的成本效用分析. 衛生經濟研究, 2020, 37(5): 19-22.
107. 占美, 吳斌, 吳逢波, 等. 安羅替尼治療晚期非小細胞肺癌的成本-效果分析. 醫藥導報, 2020, 39(2): 172-175.
108. 管欣, 張瑤, 李洪超. 注射用尤瑞克林與丁苯酞氯化鈉注射液治療輕-中度急性缺血性腦卒中的成本效用分析. 中國新藥雜志, 2020, 29(6): 715-720.
109. 張力, 周彩存, 趙軍, 等. 阿來替尼一線治療中國ALK陽性晚期或轉移性非小細胞肺癌的成本效果研究. 中國醫療保險, 2019, (12): 56-62.
110. 何江江, 張崖冰, 高潤霖, 等. 替格瑞洛與氯吡格雷治療急性冠脈綜合征的藥物經濟學分析. 中國藥物經濟學, 2013, (3): 27-32.
111. 劉家穩, 萬小敏, 劉健, 等. 標準一線化療增加西妥昔單抗在晚期非小細胞肺癌患者中的成本-效果分析. 中南藥學, 2013, 11(10): 778-780+788.
112. 官海靜, 劉國恩, 盛亞楠, 等. 奧希替尼治療非小細胞肺癌的成本效果研究. 中國醫療保險, 2018, 5(5): 47-54.
113. 岳毅樺, 猶月, 彭元求. 奧希替尼一線治療EGFR突變局部晚期或轉移性非小細胞肺癌的成本效果分析. 中國新藥與臨床雜志, 2021, 40(3): 205-209.
114. 康朔, 賈海紅, 劉國強. 奧希替尼一線治療EGFR突變陽性的局部晚期或轉移性非小細胞肺癌的成本-效用分析. 中國藥房, 2021, 32(12): 1492-1496.
115. 肖強, 劉紅艷. 利拉魯肽和西格列汀在治療2型糖尿病中的長期益處對比. 中國醫院藥學雜志, 2018, 38(11): 1207-1211,1235.
116. 卞元清, 王瑞, 潘巍, 等. 伊沙佐米治療復發/難治性骨髓瘤的成本-效用分析. 中國藥物經濟學, 2021, 16(8): 11-16.
117. 陳平鈺, 馬愛霞. 艾爾巴韋/格拉瑞韋片治療慢性丙型肝炎的成本效果分析. 中國新藥雜志, 2020, 29(4): 470-476.
118. 姚佑楠, 張榮成, 安濤, 等. 沙庫巴曲纈沙坦和依那普利在急性失代償性射血分數減低型心力衰竭住院患者中長期使用的成本-效用. 中國藥物經濟學, 2020, 15(9): 5-11,16.
119. 王皓, 曾晨欣, 李俐, 等. 奧希替尼和吉非替尼/厄洛替尼一線治療EGFR突變陽性非小細胞肺癌的成本-效果分析. 醫藥導報, 2020, 39(12): 1689-1696.
120. 施霞, 朱秋燕. 阿法替尼和吉非替尼一線治療EGFR突變陽性非小細胞肺癌的成本效用分析. 中國現代應用藥學, 2019, 36(21): 2701-2706.
121. 陳平鈺, 謝青. 艾爾巴韋格拉瑞韋與索磷布韋維帕他韋治療丙型肝炎的成本-效果分析. 中國藥物經濟學, 2019, 14(7): 14-18,26.
122. 張龍鳳, 黃棋舒, 邱玲玲, 等. 塞瑞替尼與阿來替尼一線治療ALK陽性晚期非小細胞肺癌的成本效用分析. 海峽藥學, 2019, 31(8): 86-89.
123. 范長生, 吳久鴻. 波生坦片治療肺動脈高壓成本-效用分析. 藥品評價, 2016, 13(8): 13-19,62.
124. 胡春陽, 韓晟, 劉方, 等. 利拉魯肽與羅格列酮、格列美脲、艾塞那肽和甘精胰島素治療2型糖尿病患者的短期成本-效果比較. 中國藥物經濟學, 2014, 9(4): 9-13.
125. Shi G, Park SH, Ren H, et al. Cost analysis for different sequential treatment regimens for metastatic renal cell carcinoma in China. J Med Econ, 2018, 21(12): 1150-1158.
126. Lu X, Smare C, Kambili C, et al. Health outcomes of bedaquiline in the treatment of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis in selected high burden countries. BMC Health Serv Res, 2017, 17(1): 87.
127. Zhang D, Li X, Ding J, et al. Value of perampanel as adjunctive treatment for partial-onset seizures in epilepsy: cost-effectiveness and budget impact analysis. front public health, 2021, 9: 670108.
128. Zhou X, Xia J, Mao J, et al. Real-world outcome and healthcare costs of relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma: A retrospective analysis from the Chinese experience. Hematology, 2016, 21(5): 280-286.
129. Tang L, Yang XF, Qiao M, et al. Posaconazole vs. voriconazole in the prevention of invasive fungal diseases in patients with haematological malignancies:A retrospective study. J Mycol Med, 2018, 28(2): 379-383.
130. 劉國強, 楊警囡. 司維拉姆治療慢性腎臟病高磷血癥的藥物經濟學系統評價. 中國藥物經濟學, 2021, 16(6): 26-30,38.
131. 米雪, 蘇雪龍, 孫維紅, 等. 奧希替尼治療晚期非小細胞肺癌的藥物經濟學系統評價. 中國藥房, 2021, 32(6): 713-719.
132. 陳幸, 王曉莉. 帕羅西汀對比度洛西汀治療抑郁癥的系統評價及藥物經濟學分析. 中國醫藥導報, 2021, 18(9): 140-144.
133. 楊璐, 孫路路, 王淑梅. 阿卡波糖對比二甲雙胍治療2型糖尿病療效與安全性的系統評價及藥物經濟學分析. 中國藥房, 2015, 26(24): 3371-3374.
134. 丁海櫻, 童瑩慧, 辛文秀, 等. 貝伐珠單抗用于卵巢癌治療的經濟學研究綜述. 中國現代應用藥學, 2017, 34(11): 1621-1627.
135. 孫艷坤, 劉國恩. 貝伐珠單抗治療轉移性結直腸癌的效果與成本研究綜述. 中國藥物經濟學, 2014, 9(1): 9-15.
136. 劉潔, 萬楚川, 陳磊, 等. 丹參酮Ⅱ_(A)磺酸鈉治療冠心病心絞痛的藥物經濟學評價. 中國藥房, 2020, 31(18): 2240-2246.
137. 萬小敏, 彭六保, 曾小慧, 等. 甘草酸單銨半胱氨酸改善病毒性肝炎患者肝功能異常的藥物經濟學評價. 中國藥物經濟學, 2020, 15(7): 5-9,30.
138. 陳平鈺, 李洪超, 馬愛霞. 艾爾巴韋/格拉瑞韋片治療基因1b型慢性丙型肝炎的經濟學評價. 中國循證醫學雜志, 2018, 18(12): 1352-1358.
139. Xie F, Zhou T. Industry sponsorship bias in cost effectiveness analysis: registry based analysis. BMJ, 2022, 377: e069573.
140. 顏建周, 董心月, 馬旭鋒, 等. 英國價值定價理念對我國醫保藥品報銷政策的啟示. 中國衛生政策研究, 2020, 13(1): 62-69.
141. Claxton K, Sculpher M, Carroll S. Value-based pricing for pharmaceuticals: its role, specification and prospects in a newly devolved NHS. York, UK:Centre for Health Economics, University of York, 2011: 60.
142. Department of Health and Social Care. Pharmaceutical price regulation scheme 2014, 2013-12-03. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/pharmaceutical-price-regulation-scheme-2014.
143. 張心悅, 丁錦希. 英國腫瘤藥物的衛生技術評估評價研究及其啟示. 中國藥物經濟學, 2021, 16(5): 27-32.
144. 董心月, 張伶俐, 邵蓉. 英國價值定價理念與藥品補償制度的銜接及啟示. 衛生經濟研究, 2018, (10): 54-57.

Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine

The pharmacoeconomic analyses of the Chinese national drug negotiations: a systematic review

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Previous Article

Next Article

Format

Content