ObjectiveTo systematically review the pharmacoeconomics research of coagulation factor Ⅷ for the treatment of hemophilia A. MethodsPubMed, EMbase, Web of Science, The Cochrane Library, CNKI, VIP and WanFang Data databases were electronically searched to collect pharmacoeconomic studies of coagulation factor Ⅷ for the treatment of hemophilia A from inception to February 2022. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies; then, qualitative systematic review was carried out from the aspects of research model, research parameters and uncertainty analysis. ResultsA total of 17 pharmacoeconomic studies were included. The overall quality of the included literature was relatively high, and most of them conformed to the basic framework of pharmacoeconomic research; however, there were still differences and deficiencies in model setting and parameter selection. Most results of the study evaluation showed that prophylaxis of coagulation factor Ⅷ had cost-effectiveness advantages over on-demand treatment. ConclusionCurrent evidence shows that the preventive treatment of coagulation factor Ⅷ may have certain cost-effectiveness advantages compared with on-demand treatment; however, the adaptability of this conclusion to China still needs to be analyzed.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Objective To systematically evaluate the pharmacoeconomic vaule of chemotherapy combined with rituximab for patients with non-Hodgkin’s lymphomas (NHL). Methods A systematic literature search of cost-effectiveness studies on rituximab treating NHL published from 1998 to 2012 was carried out in following databases: PubMed, ScienceDirect, Health Technology Assessment (HTA) and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR). And the references of included studies were also retrieved manually. The studies were screened according to the pre-designed inclusion and exclusion criteria, and the incremental cost- effectiveness ratio (ICER) in comparison between chemotherapy plus rituximab and chemotherapy alone was systematically evaluated according to the literature evaluation index system. Results The average ICER of Rituximab treating NHL was 16 318/QALY, 17 688/QALY, and 22 461/QALY in the UK, Mainland Europe, and US, respectively. All the reported ICERs in the included studies were below the implemented country-specific thresholds. Conclusion Based on present foreign literature, the integrated therapy of chemotherapy and rituximab for NHL is supposed to be a better cost-effective therapy with ICER below the implemented country-specific thresholds.
With the continuous progress of national medical insurance strategic purchasing and value-based healthcare, pharmacoeconomic evaluation, serving as a technical tool for assessing the cost-effectiveness of healthcare interventions, has played an important role in policy decision support. Comparative efficacy evidence is the core data source for pharmacoeconomic evaluation, and also the foundation for conducting pharmacoeconomic research. In recent years, the number of innovative drugs approved based on single-arm trial has been increasing. Most existing randomized controlled clinical trials are also placebo-controlled or compared with traditional treatments, unable to directly meet the need for efficacy evidence of comparisons with conventional or standard treatments in pharmacoeconomic evaluations. In the absence of direct comparative efficacy evidence, exploring indirect comparison methods for efficacy has become a cutting-edge direction in pharmacoeconomic evaluation. Through a comprehensive literature review and systematic analysis, this study focuses on five indirect comparison methods based on individual patient data for population adjustment, including match adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC), simulated treatment comparison (STC), propensity score matching (PSM), inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) and network meta regression (NMR), and discussing their basic concepts, advantages and disadvantages and application comparisons. Finally, it provides methodological suggestions on how to choose an indirect comparison method for efficacy, with the aim of promoting the generation of higher-quality indirect comparison evidence for efficacy and advancing pharmacoeconomic evaluation to provide high-quality evidence references for healthcare policy decision-making.
ObjectiveTo systematically evaluate pharmacoeconomic studies on Programmed cell death-1/Programmed cell death-ligand 1 (PD-1/PD-L1) inhibitors for advanced gastric cancer (GC) globally, providing evidence for healthcare policy formulation and clinical decision-making. MethodsWe conducted electronic searches in PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, Embase, CNKI, WanFang Data, and VIP databases, retrieving relevant literature published from inception to February 2025. Two researchers independently screened the literature, extracted data, and assessed study quality using the CHEERS 2022 checklist. We systematically summarized and analyzed the basic characteristics, model structures, methodological approaches, and economic outcomes of the included studies through inductive analysis. ResultsA total of 15 studies were included, with overall good quality. All included studies employed cost-utility analyses, among which 9 utilized partitioned survival models and 6 adopted Markov models. Direct medical costs were used as the cost calculation basis in all studies. Economic evaluations showed that most PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors combined with chemotherapy were not cost-effective compared with chemotherapy alone. However, in patients with high PD-L1 expression, PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor-based combination therapy demonstrated cost-effectiveness for advanced gastric cancer treatment. ConclusionThe economic viability of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor-based combination therapy for advanced GC varies significantly across regions due to drug pricing, economic status, and national contexts. Although most current regimens are not cost-effective, their clinical efficacy advantages suggest substantial future potential. Reducing drug prices is recommended to enhance drug accessibility in China.
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.
