Objective To explore the effects on quality of life (QOL), the targeted rates of metabolic parameters and cost-effectiveness in newly diagnosed type 2 diabetic patients who underwent multifactorial intensive intervention. Methods One hundred and twenty seven cases in an intensive intervention and 125 cases in a conventional intervention group were investigated by using the SF-36 questionnaire. The comparison of QOL and the targeted rates of metabolic parameters between the two groups were made. We assessed the influence factors of QOL by stepwise regression analysis and evaluated the efficiency by pharmacoeconomic cost-effectiveness analysis. Results The targeted rates of blood glucose, blood lipid and blood pressure with intensive policies were significantly higher than those with conventional policy (P＜0.05). The intensive group’s role limitations due to physical problems (RP), general health (GH), vitality (VT), role limitation due to emotional problems (RE) and total scores after 6 months intervention were significantly higher than those of baseline (P＜0.05). The vitality scores and health transition (HT) of the intensive group were better than those of the conventional group after 6 months intervention. But the QOL scores of the conventional group were not improved after intervention. The difference of QOL’s total scores after intervention was related to that of HbA1c. The total cost-effectiveness rate of blood glucose, blood lipid, blood pressure control and the total cost-effectiveness rate of QOL with intensive policy were higher than those with the conventional policy. Conclusions Quality of life and the targeted rates of blood glucose, blood lipid and blood pressure in newly diagnosed type 2 diabetic patients with multifactorial intensive intervention policy are better and more economic than those with conventional policy.
ObjectivesTo review the pharmacoeconomic evaluation of rheumatoid arthritis patients with an inadequate efficacy or intolerance with conventional synthetic disease modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs).MethodsCNKI, WanFang Data, VIP, PubMed, EMbase, Web of Science and The Cochrane Library were electronically searched to collect pharmacoeconomic studies about rheumatoid arthritis patients with an inadequate efficacy or intolerance with csDMARDs from inception to February 2019. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and assessed risk of bias of the included studies, then, descriptive analysis was performed.ResultsA total of 16 studies were included, where most compared the economics of different treatment methods from the perspective of the payer by cohort or individual model. The economic costs in the studies were primarily on direct cost. Sensitivity analyses were used to prove the robustness of the main analysis in each study. Biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) might be more cost-effective than csDMARDs. In addition, compared with the bDMARDs, new-marketed targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (tsDMARDs) might be more cost-effective.ConclusionsIt could be considered to implement more new marketed tsDMARDs to improve patients’ condition to reduce the economic burden and optimize the allocation of health care resources.
ObjectivesTo survey the systematic reviews of pharmacoeconomic evaluations.MethodsDatabases including The Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMbase (Ovid), NHS EED (Ovid), CENTRAL, Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Database, CNKI, WanFang Data, VIP and CBM were searched from inception to May 2018 to collect systematic reviews of pharmacoeconomic evaluations. Two reviewers independently screened literature and extracted data. Data statistics and frequency analysis were then conducted on the basic characteristics of included literatures, which involves the publication journal type and influencing factors (IF), disease type, quality assessment tool, etc. The amended AMSTAR scale was used to assess the methodological quality of pharm-SR.ResultsOne hundred and forty-three systematic reviews were included in the overview. The UK had a large number of publications (39.8%), which were mostly published in the Health Technology Assessment and Pharmacoeconomics. Among the included literatures, most were evaluated tumor related pharmacoeconomics systematic reviews (20.8%). They searched on average 7.42±4.00 databases. The British Medical Journal checklist (20.15%) and the Drummond checklist (19.40) were the main tools for quality evaluation. The methodological qualities of these studies were not high.ConclusionsThe evidence shows that the number of systematic reviews of pharmacoeconomic is increasing and research methodology is gradually unifying. However, the quality is still required to be further improved.
ObjectiveTo systematically evaluate the pharmacoeconomic value of radiofrequency ablation (RFA) versus amiodarone in the treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF), and to provide reference for treatment scheme selection, drug selection and the formulation of drug policy.
MethodsWe searched databases including PubMed, The Cochrane Library, CNKI and CBM from 2000 to 2014 to collect pharmacoeconomic studies on RFA versus Amiodarone for treating AF. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data, and assessed the methodological quality of included studies. The cost-effectiveness of RFA and Amiodarone for AF was compared according to the cost, effectiveness, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).
ResultsA total of three studies were included. The results of pharmacoeconomic evaluation showed that the ICERs for each study were $7 976 to $29 068, ￡7 763 to ￡27 745, and $59 194, respectively. According to country-specific willingness to pay thresholds, the ICER of each included study was acceptable.
ConclusionCompared to Amiodarone, RFA is a cost-effective therapy for AF.
Markov model is one of the decision analysis models, which is widely used in pharmacoeconomic evaluation studies. In terms of dealing with changes of disease risks during different times, the transition probabilities among different Markov health states becomes hard to calculate. Nevertheless, survival analysis is an available resolution. In this paper, we introduced how to apply survival analysis in calculation of transition probability in time-dependent model based on cumulative probability with a case analysis on advanced gastric cancer Markov model, and provide more information for researchers to build models.
ObjectiveThis study aims to conduct a systematic review and quality assessment of published domestic and foreign studies on the pharmacoeconomics of Chinese patent medicines, with the goal of identifying relevant issues and proposing improvement suggestions. MethodsThe methods used in this study involved systematic searches of the CNKI, WanFang Data, VIP, and PubMed databases for domestic and foreign studies related to the pharmacoeconomics of Chinese patent medicines, with a search deadline of May 20, 2022. The studies were evaluated systematically based on various aspects such as title, year, author, journal, research perspective, research type, disease area, research object, research design type, research method, application model, model calibration, sensitivity analysis, cost calculation, effectiveness indicators, and adverse reaction comparison. The evaluation of report quality and methodological quality was conducted using the consolidated health economic evaluation reporting standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) and the quality of health economic studies (QHES) tools, respectively. ResultsThis study included a total of 249 articles, including 247 in Chinese and 2 in English. The first article on the pharmacoeconomics of Chinese patent medicine was published in 2000. The diseases studied covered 59.26% of the ICD-11 disease areas. Articles reporting on the research perspective accounted for 16.87% of the total number of studies, while 32.4% of studies provided an explanation of the research type. The main method used was cost-effectiveness analysis, accounting for 86.75% of the studies, and the main cost component was direct medical costs, accounting for 89.56%. The primary effectiveness indicator was the overall effective rate, accounting for 78.31% of the studies. The average compliance rate with the CHEERS 2022 standard was 43.58%, and the average QHES score was 56.7. ConclusionA considerable part of the existing research on the pharmacoeconomics of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) suffers from problems such as the lack of research methods or non-standardized methods. Therefore, the relevant research abilities of researchers who conduct TCM pharmacoeconomic research need to be improved.
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.
Health economics analysis has become increasingly important in recent years. It is essential to master the use of relevant software to conduct research in health economics. TreeAge Pro software is widely used in the healthcare decision analysis. It can carry out decision analysis, cost-effectiveness analysis, and Monte Carlo simulation. With powerful functionlity and outstanding visualization, it can build Markov disease transition models to analyze Markov processes according to disease models and accomplish decision analysis with decision trees and influence diagrams. This paper introduces cost-effectiveness analysis based on Markov model with examples and explains the main graphs.
ObjectiveTo systematically review the effectiveness and safety of salvianolate injection and Danshen injection for patients with angina pectoris, and evaluate the cost of drug.
MethodsWe electronically searched databases including PubMed, CENTRAL (Issue 4, 2013), CNKI, VIP and WanFang Data (2004.1 to 2013.5) for the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the comparison between salvianolate injection and Danshen injection for angina pectoris from January 2004 to May 2013. Relevant journals and conference proceedings were also manually retrieved. Two reviewers independently screened literature in accordance with the inclusion and exclusion criteria, extracted the data and assess the methodological quality of included studies. Then, meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.2 software.
ResultsA total of 10 RCTs involving 1 196 patients were included. The results of meta-analysis showed that, salvianolate injection was obviously superior to Danshen injection in the effectiveness (OR=3.79, 95%CI 2.78 to 5.17, P < 0.000 01) and safety (OR=0.24, 95%CI 0.09 to 0.64, P=0.004), but lack of economic advantages in the treatment of the angina pectoris diseases.
ConclusionCurrent evidence indicates that, salvianolate injection is a safe and effective scheme for angina pectoris, and Danshen injection is considered as a economic method. Because of the limited quantity and quality of currently-available research, the aforementioned conclusion should be verified by strictly-designed and large-scale sample RCTs.
Objective To systematically evaluate the quality of published pharmacoeconomics studies on Chinese patent medicines for neoplasms. Methods Datasets including CNKI, WanFang Data, VIP, SinoMed, PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and EMbase were searched to collect pharmacoeconomics studies of Chinese patent medicines in neoplasms from the establishment of the database to September 30, 2022. Consolidated health economic evaluation reporting standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) and quality of health economics studies (QHES) were used to evaluate the reporting quality and methodological quality. Results A total of 25 studies were included, with an average CHEERS 2022 coincidence rate of 40.09% and an average QHES score of 53.2. Conclusion The quantity and quality of pharmacoeconomics studies on Chinese patent medicines in neoplasms are insufficient and flawed. It is suggested to strenthen the collaboration between scientific research institutions and hospitals and standardize the pharmacoeconomics studies on Chinese patent medicines in neoplasms to provide hygienic decision-making evidence for Chinese patent medicines in neoplasms.
