ObjectivesTo evaluate the economic efficacy of nab-paclitaxel (NAB-P) combined with gemcitabine (GEM) versus GEM alone in the treatment of metastatic pancreatic cancer in China.MethodsA Markov model simulating the costs and health outcomes was developed to estimate quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). The impact of parameter uncertainty on the model was assessed by deterministic one-way sensitivity analysis.ResultsNAB-P combined with GEM was shown superior efficacy compared to gemcitabine monotherapy, however with higher costs. The ICER between the two groups was 964 780.79￥/QALY.ConclusionsCompared with gemcitabine monotherapy, NAB-P combined with GEM is not cost-effective. The conclusion is confirmed by deterministic one-way sensitivity analysis.
ObjectiveTo systematically review the health economic evaluation studies in which externalities of antibacterial drug uses were identified.MethodsPubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library, CNKI, WanFang Data and VIP databases were electronically searched to collect health economic evaluation studies in which externalities of antibacterial drug uses were identified from inception to December 31st, 2020. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. Descriptive analysis was then performed.ResultsA total of 14 studies were included. Negative externalities and their impacts on costs and/or effectiveness were examined in 13 literature, and positive externalities in terms of an improvement in disease control were included in only one study. No study was found in which both negative and positive externalities were included. The methods used to quantify negative externalities included: only costs associated with drug resistance per prescription or per unit were calculated; both costs and health impacts associated with the second/third line treatments followed a treatment failure (due to drug resistance) were calculated using a decision tree. In one study in which positive externalities were measured, both health gain and cost reduction from an improvement in disease control (as a benefit of antibacterial drug uses) were calculated by constructing a dynamic model at the population level.ConclusionsWe propose that both the positive and negative externalities should be included in health economic evaluation. This can be achieved by measuring the relevant costs and health impacts in a broader perspective, using a disease-transmission dynamic model. In addition, to achieve an improved health utility measurement, disability-adjusted-life years rather than quality-adjusted-life years should be encouraged for use. Finally, both costs and effectiveness should be discounted.