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 introduce economic evaluation methods for anticancer-drugs with basket trial design, and to provide references for related research and decision-making. MethodsA case analysis was conducted on economic evaluation methods for anticancer-drugs with basket trial design, which was issued by Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH) in the Economic Guidance Report. Moreover, both the advantages and disadvantages of the methods were analyzed in accordance with the characteristics of basket trials. ResultsPooled analysis and tumor-specific analysis were two methods frequently employed in the case analysis. However, great uncertainties were available in both of them. The uncertainty of the former was mainly reflected in the heterogeneity of the targeted population, while the uncertainty of the latter was mainly shown in the insufficient sample size of the subgroup. ConclusionCurrently, economic evaluation methods for anticancer-drugs with basket trial design are immature. Thus, researchers are required to explore the methods of innovation evaluation with lower uncertainty; reimbursement decision-makers should fully consider the uncertainty of evaluation results and enterprises should collect the real-world data for the demands of evaluation to promote the reasonable allocation of healthcare resources in China.
ObjectiveTo systematically review the pharmacoeconomic studies of negotiated drugs in the Chinese National Reimbursement Drug List (NRDL). MethodsPubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library, CNKI and WanFang Data databases were electronically searched to collect the pharmacoeconomic studies of negotiated drugs in the Chinese NRDL from January 1, 2012 to January 1, 2022. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies, then, the qualitative systematic review was performed. ResultsA total of 59 (33.9%) drugs were evaluated in 124 pharmacoeconomic studies. Only 23 (13.2%) drugs were evaluated in 29 (23.3%) pharmacoeconomic studies prior to the negotiation. Besides, 75 (60.5%) of the negotiated drugs were supported by evidence of economic superiority than the comparison. ConclusionThe pharmacoeconomic studies on drugs which listed in the NRDL is insufficient. Future pharmacoeconomic studies should perform to provide more substantial support for the national drug negotiations.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Objective To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of chemotherapy in children with newly diagnosed Hodgkin lymphoma at low-, intermediate-, and high-risk. Methods From the perspective of health system, a decision-tree model was designed for cost-effectiveness analysis. The chemotherapy regimens of low-risk group included OEPA (vincristine, etoposide, prednisone, doxorubicin), AV-PC (doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisone, cyclophosphamide), and ABVD (doxorubicin, bleomycin, vincristine, dacarbazine); intermediate-risk group included OEPA, ABVE-PC (doxorubicin, bleomycin, vincristine, etoposide, prednisone, cyclophosphamide) and ABVD; high-risk group included OEPA, ABVE-PC, ABVD and BEACOPP (bleomycin, etoposide, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, procarbazine, prednisone). The effectiveness and cost parameters were derived from the event-free survival rate reported in the literature, the drug linked reference price in Sichuan province, and treatment price of medical institutions. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were performed to explore the impact of uncertainty. Results In the low-risk group, compared with AV-PC, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) of OEPA and ABVD were 80 700 yuan and 108 799 yuan, respectively. In the intermediate-risk group, compared with OEPA, the ICER of ABVE-PC and ABVD were −17 737 yuan and −4 701 yuan respectively. In the high-risk group, compared with ABVE-PC, the ICER of OEPA, ABVD and BEACOPP were 149 262, 472 090 and 64 652 yuan, respectively. Univariate sensitivity analysis showed that in low-risk group, the most influential factors were cost of OEPA and cost of ABVD; in moderate-risk group were cost of ABVE-PC and cost of OEPA; in the high-risk group were cost of OEPA, cost of ABVD, and cost of BEACOPP, respectively. The results of probabilistic sensitivity analysis are basically consistent with those of the main analysis. Conclusion If China's per capita gross domestic product in 2023 (89 358 yuan) was used as the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold, OEPA in the low-risk group, OEPA in the intermediate-risk group and BEACOPP in the high-risk group are cost-effective.
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.
ObjectiveTo systematically evaluate the pharmacoeconomic value of radiofrequency ablation (RFA) versus amiodarone in the treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF), and to provide reference for treatment scheme selection, drug selection and the formulation of drug policy. MethodsWe searched databases including PubMed, The Cochrane Library, CNKI and CBM from 2000 to 2014 to collect pharmacoeconomic studies on RFA versus Amiodarone for treating AF. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data, and assessed the methodological quality of included studies. The cost-effectiveness of RFA and Amiodarone for AF was compared according to the cost, effectiveness, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). ResultsA total of three studies were included. The results of pharmacoeconomic evaluation showed that the ICERs for each study were $7 976 to $29 068, ￡7 763 to ￡27 745, and $59 194, respectively. According to country-specific willingness to pay thresholds, the ICER of each included study was acceptable. ConclusionCompared to Amiodarone, RFA is a cost-effective therapy for AF.