Objective To evaluate the cost effectiveness of four different mechanisms clinical commonly used antidepressants, namely, amitriptyline, escitalopram, mirtazapine and venlafaxine in the treatment of moderate-severe depressive disorder in China and to provide clinicians with some advice. Methods We carried out the cost-effectiveness analysis of four antidepressants by establishing a decision tree model. The parameters uncertainty in the model was estimated through one-way sensitivity analysis. Results In terms of average cost-effectiveness ratio (CER), amitriptyline’s was 45.24 RMB, which was the lowest. And the CERs of mirtazapine, escitalopram and venlafaxine were 273.71 RMB, 332.00 RMB and 716.58 RMB, respectively. While in terms of incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), venlafaxine was excluded as the dominated strategy. When the threshold value of willingness to pay (WTP) was less than 3 420.92 RMB, amitriptyline was the most cost-effective; when the threshold value ranges between 3 420.92 RMB and 4 200 RMB, mirtazapine was the most cost-effective; and when the threshold value was over 4 200 RMB, escitalopram was the most cost-effective. In the one-way sensitivity analysis, when we changed the four kinds of drugs costs within a certain range, the results was not changed with the change of venlafaxine’s cost but changed with the other three drugs costs. Conclusion Clinicians may choose the most cost-effective therapy according to patients’ different WTP values. We suggests that health care institutions should encourage the use of escitalopram clinically and provide subsidies for patients so as to increase the overall society benefit.
ObjectivesTo compare the common application methods of meta-analysis results used in economic evaluations so as to provide reference and suggestions for similar economic evaluations in future.MethodsFour methods were used to calculate the effectiveness deriving from meta-analysis of omeprazole and esomeprazole in the treatment of peptic ulcer, then substituted into the decision tree model to perform cost-effectiveness analysis.ResultsMethod 1 used the risk difference as the incremental effectiveness. The ICER was ￥2 420, and the equal probability point of the cost-effectiveness acceptability curve (CEAC) in the probability sensitivity analysis was approximately ￥2 600. Method 2 used the effective rate of the study group in high-quality literatures as the benchmark, calculated the effective rate of the control group according to the RR. The ICER was ￥2 016, and the equal probability point of the CEAC was approximately￥2 000. Method 3 was based on the effective rate of the control group in high-quality literatures to calculate the effective rate of the study group according to RR. The ICER was ￥2 420 and the equal probability point of the CEAC was approximately￥2 200; Method 4 used literature weights to calculate the effectiveness, the ICER is ￥2 420, and the equal probability point of the CEAC was about ￥2 400.ConclusionsThe results of the four methods share little difference, and the sensitivity analysis results show that the base case analysis results are more robust. However, in the application process, method 1 lacks specific effectiveness of the two groups and underestimate the variation range of the effectiveness difference when one-way sensitivity analysis was performed. Relevant assumptions are further required to limit the possibility of effectiveness calculated greater than 1 in sensitivity analysis among method 2 and 3. Comprehensively, method 4 can be recommended in the economic evaluations for fewer defects of calculating effectiveness.
ObjectiveTo evaluate the economics of nafamostat mesylate compared with unfractionated heparin for continuous renal replacement therapy anticoagulation. MethodsA decision tree model was constructed to calculate the cost difference between the two anticoagulation methods. Survival analysis data comes from retrospective literature in Asian countries. The cost data comes from procurement data and the prices of medical and health services in some regions. A 72-hour scenario analysis is performed and a sensitivity analysis is performed on key parameters. ResultsThe basic analysis results showed that compared with the unfractionated heparin group, the total cost difference of nafamostat in the 144-hour CRRT treatment was 5 350.34 yuan, and the unfractionated heparin was more economical. In the 72-hour scenario analysis, unfractionated heparin is also more economical. Univariate sensitivity analysis showed that the cost of single-use hemodialysis filters and supporting pipelines and the cost of plasma antithrombin Ⅲ activity (AT-Ⅲ) measurement had a greater impact on the change of the cost difference. The results of probability sensitivity analysis show that the model structure is stable and robust. When the unit price of nafamostat is about 110.82 yuan/piece, the cost of nafamostat and unfractionated heparin in 144-hour CRRT treatment is both 19 185.37 yuan, and the cost difference is 0.ConclusionWhen the unit price of nafamostat mesylate drops to a sufficiently low level, it could have an advantageous health economy.