Objective To assess the efficacy and safety of Dan Hong injection for patients with angina pectoris compared with compound salvia injection as the control group. Methods Databases were electronically searched from MEDLINE, EMbase, CBM, CNKI, VIP, and Wanfang Data (January, 2007 to July, 2010), and reference lists of all papers identified were also checked. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of the effect of Dan Hong injection on angina pectoris were identified and assessed according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and then RevMan 4.3 was used to undertake Meta analysis. Results Twenty-seven trials involving 3 030 patients were included. Meta-analysis showed that: a) Compared with compound salvia injection, Dan Hong injection was capable of significantly decreasing the angina incidence (OR=3.84, 95% CI 3.03 to 4.88, Plt;0.000 01); b) Dan Hong injection was capable of significantly improving ECG review effectiveness compared with compound salvia injection (OR=1.98, 95% CI 1.44 to 2.66, Plt;0.000 01); c) Dan Hong injection was obviously superior to compound salvia injection in improving the NST (WMD= 0.78, 95%CI 0.42 to 1.14, Plt;0.000 1) and ∑ST (WMD= 0.45, 95%CI 0.32 to 0.57, Plt;0.000 01); and d) Dan Hong injection was able to obviously improve the hemorheology index after angina pectoris; Meta-analyses of eight trials in which adverse events were reported showed that no significant difference was found between Dan Hong injection and salvia injection (OR=0.64, 95%CI 0.33 to 1.25, P=0.19). Conclusion Dan Hong injection can effectively improve the ST segment ischemia and hemorheology index after angina pectoris, significantly increase the effectiveness of electrocardiogram reviews and eventually significantly reduce the recurrence rate of angina, and appears to be much safer. Further high quality RCTs are required to provide reliable evidence on the treatment of patients with angina pectoris.
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.