ObjectiveTo compare the cost-effectiveness of etanercept combined with methotrexate to methotrexate plus placebo in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis and to provide references for clinical practice.MethodsDecision tree model was developed to estimate the cost-effectiveness from the perspective of the health care system by TreeAge Pro 2016 software. The cost-effectiveness of the two treatments were compared by incremental analysis, and the robustness of the results were analyzed by sensitivity analysis.ResultsThe cost of etanercept combined methotrexate group in one year duration was ¥212 692, the effective rate (ACR50) was 66.4%; the cost of methotrexate combined with placebo group in one year duration was ¥572, the effective rate (ACR50) was 40.6%. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of two groups was ¥818 000/person, and the sensitivity analysis showed that the results were robust.ConclusionEtanercept combined methotrexate is significant more effective than methotrexat. But the cost of etanercept combined methotrexate is too high to afford and is not economical compared to methotrexate.
ObjectiveTo systematically review the health economic evaluation of nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC). MethodsThe PubMed, Web of Science, EMbase, CNKI, WanFang Data and CBM databases were electronically searched to collect the health economic evaluations on NPC from inception to December 18, 2022. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of the included studies. A descriptive analysis was performed. ResultsA total of 20 studies were included, which contained 14 about different drug combinations, 6 about chemotherapy and the comparison among intensity modulated radiotherapy, conventional radiotherapy and surgery. The results showed that for patients with recurrent, metastatic, or advanced NPC, compared with docetaxel plus cisplatin, fluorouracil plus cisplatin or docetaxel and cisplatin plus fluorouracil, gemcitabine plus cisplatin (GP) was the most economical, and compared with GP or camrelizumab plus GP, toripalimab plus GP (TGP) was more economical. For early-stage NPC, intensity modulated radiotherapy was not economical compared with conventional radiotherapy and surgery. ConclusionCurrent evidence shows that GP and TGP are economical and can be popularized clinically.
Objective To systematically review the health economic evaluations of using long-term rhythm-control antiarrhythmic drugs (AAD) for patients with paroxysmal or persistent atrial fibrillation (AF). Methods Databases including PubMed, EMbase, Scopus, CNKI, SinoMed, WanFang Data, and official websites of well-established health technology assessment (HTA) institutions were electronically searched to present the economic evaluations of AAD and the recommendations of HTA institutions based on drug economy from inception to April 23rd, 2022. Two reviewers independently screened the literature, extracted data and systematic review was then performed. Results A total of 19 studies were included, including 11 cost-effectiveness or cost-utility analysis studies and 8 official documents from HTA institutions. Only 5 (45.5%) economic evaluations were of relatively high quality, and English language studies were of higher quality than Chinese language studies ones. The included studies lacked elements that CHEERS 2022 concerns, such as health economics analysis plans, equity and distributional effects, engagement with patients and other stakeholders and the impact on the study. Dronedarone and amiodarone were the main focus of the evaluation, and the study results showed that dronedarone was cost-effective compared with other drugs in different study designs and national settings. However, there were differences between the recommendations of HTA agencies and the results of economic evaluation studies. Conclusion The completeness of health economics evaluations needs to be improved, along with the quality of clinical evidence in the field of AF-AAD for Chinese patients. Additionally, the informational value of drugs should be thoroughly investigated through budget impact analysis and distributional cost-effectiveness analysis to provide evidence of high-quality studies for decision-makers in China.
ObjectiveTo systematically review the economic evaluation research of anti-novel coronavirus infection drugs at home and abroad, so as to promote clinical rational drug use. MethodsThe PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMbase, Web of Science, INAHTA, SinoMed, WanFang Data, and CNKI databases were systematically searched from January 1, 2020 to March 25, 2023, to collect economic evaluation studies related to anti-novel coronavirus infection drugs. ResultsA total of 22 articles were included, among which 11 studies were conducted from the perspective of health system, and most of the studies performed cost estimation on direct medical costs. The overall compliance rate of the included studies ranged from 42% to 70%, with deficiencies in model setting, incomplete uncertainty analysis, and lack of stakeholder participation. The results showed that immunotherapy drugs (Dexamethasone, Tocilizumab), neutralizing antibody (REGEN-COV antibody), small molecule drugs (Baricitinib, Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir, Molnupiravir, Favipiravir) and statin were cost-effective. There was some variation in the results of the economic evaluation of Remdesivir. ConclusionAt present, there are few studies on the economic evaluation of drug interventions in COVID-19. Existing studies have pointed out that most drug interventions are cost-effective. It is suggested that more standardized pharmacoeconomic evaluation studies based on the actual situation of China epidemic should be carried out in the future.