The application of economic tools to evaluate the cost and health benefits and screen out more cost-effective drugs and technologies is an important measure to improve efficiency of medical resource allocation in China. Given the inherent differences between strict clinical trials and clinical routine practice, using trial-based economic evaluations to guide relevant medical decisions may lead to a certain risk of value deviation. Recent development of real-world data provides opportunities to assess the cost-effectiveness of drugs under the practical utilization, and has gradually become a new research hotspot. However, the complexity of the actual clinical environment also puts higher demands on researchers and decision makers to construct, understand and apply real-world evidence. In order to further prompt the normalization of economic evaluation based on real-world data and promote the scientific application of real-world evidence in medical and health decision-making, this project aims at the crucial issues including scope, research design and quality evaluation, to clarify the key considerations on the using of real-world evidence in medical decision-making. Combined with the international guidelines, the latest advancement of relevant research areas and the advice and opinions from multidisciplinary experts, we aim to provide technical references and guidance for researchers and decision makers, and to strengthen the evidence base of management policies.
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.
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 analyze the efficacy, hospitalization cost and cost-effect of different treatments for multiple myeloma, so as to provide references for the treatment and development medical insurance payment policy of multiple myeloma.MethodsA total of 60 cases of multiple myeloma patients who were treated in the General Hospital of Shenyang Military Command from January 1st, 2013 to December 31st, 2017 were included. According to the treatment method, they were categorized into the traditional treatment group (n=37) and novel drug treatment group (n=23). The total response rate and hospitalisation expenses for patients with medical insurance of the two groups were calculated and compared, and cost-effectiveness analysis was then performed.ResultsThe overall response rate in patients in traditional treatment group was 56.76% (21/37), and in novel drug treatment group was 82.61% (19/23) (χ2=4.366, P=0.039). The annual average drug fee, annual average novel drug fee, secondary average drug fee, secondary average novel drug fee, annual average total cost, and secondary average total cost of the medical insurance patients in the novel drug treatment group were significantly higher than those in the traditional treatment group (P<0.05). The annual average cost of personal and coordinated payment for the medical insurance patients in the novel drug treatment group were 172 229.53 yuan and 48 237.51 yuan, respectively, which were significantly higher than the traditional treatment group (P<0.01). The cost-effectiveness ratio of the traditional treatment group was 884.44 yuan/%, the novel drug treatment group was 2 821.80 yuan/%, the cost-effective incremental ratio was 7 075.75 yuan/%, the incremental cost-effective ratio was 7 075.75 yuan/%, and the sensitivity analysis was consistent with the results.ConclusionsThe total response rate of novel drug treatment is significantly higher than traditional treatment. However, novel drug treatment costs higher, and patient's economic burden is also higher. The traditional treatment is superior to novel drug treatment in cost-effectiveness analysis.
Objective This study analyzed the medical expenditure and its influential factors, and compared the clinical effectiveness and medical expenditure of three major drugs. Methods We designed the cohort study to compare the difference of medical and pharmaceutical expenditures between patients with and without underlying diseases. Multi-linear regression was applied to analyze the influential factors. Incremental expenditure-effectiveness ratio was applied to study three clinically important drugs. Results The curing rate of non-critical patients was statistically significant than critical patients (73.68%, 99.38%, P=0.000) .The curing rate of non-critical patients without underlying diseases was statistically significant than those with underlying diseases in the cohort (96%, 99.66%, P=0.001 6). No significance was identified in the critical patients cohort. The medical expenditure of non-critical patients with and without underlying diseases were 7 879.22 and 7 172.23 RMB per capita, respectively. Accordingly, the medical expenditure in critical patients was 24 912.89 and 26 433.53 RMB per capita. No significance was identified in the two cohorts. Medical expenditure was positively correlated with age and disease severity, with its equation y=4585.71+79.04X1+17188.87X2 (X1: age, X2: disease severity). Regarding the clinical effectiveness and medical expenditure, no significance was identified in critical patients who administered small and medium dose of Methylprednisolone. The expenditure-effectiveness ratios of Ribavirin that was administered by non-critical patients without underlying dissuades were 6 107 and 4 225 RMB, respectively. Accordingly, the expenditure-effectiveness ratios of Thymosin were 11 651 and 6 107 RMB. Conclusions The curing rate of non-critical patients without underlying diseases was higher than the counterpart in the cohort. No influence of underlying diseases was found in the critical patient cohort. Medical expenditure was positively correlated with age and disease severity. Small-and-medium dose of Methylprednisolone might not influence the curing rate and medical expenditure in critical patients. The effectiveness of Thymosin for non-critical patients with and without underlying diseases was not significantly different. However, additional 5 877 RMB occurred if Thymosin was administrated. Likewise, the effectiveness of Ribavirin for non-critical patients remains the same. However, additional 1 082 RMB was consumed in Ribavirin-administrated patient.
Objective To evaluate the effectiveness, safety, cost and optimal dosing regimen of bone morphogenetic protein (BMP) used in the lumbar spine arthrodesis. Methods We formulated the clinical questions according to the PICO principle. We searched the ACP Journal Club (1991 to February 2008), The Cochrane Library (Issue 4, 2007) and PubMed (1990 to February 2008) as well as other relevant databases. The evidence retrieved was critically appraised. Results Current evidence showed that BMP was a satisfactory and safe behavior in lumbar arthrodesis. Its cost was equal to that of autogenous iliac bone graft. The types of BMP currently used in clinical practice are BMP-2 and BMP-7. Finished product of fixed composition ratio was recommended in anterior lumbar inter-body fusion, while in posterolateral fusion, 20mg of BMP-2 or 3.5mg of BMP-7 for each side was recommended, with proper carrier according to the place where it was used. Conclusion BMP may be introduced to China for lumbar spine arthrodesis. Before it is applied extensively, further large-scale, high-quality randomized controlled trials are needed. Meanwhile, more research is necessary to determine the proper dosage and preparation form for the dominant Chinese population.
Onehealth, an evidence-based decision-making software, is based on the United Nations' epidemiological reference modules to predict the effect of health services. Onehealth is a large database. The software is using activitybased costing, simulating investment costs of health system and changes of mortality in different coverage levels. By the cost of inputs/avoid deaths, it could quantify the cost of health services effectiveness and provide an intuitive basis for the rational allocation of health resources. This study introduces the relevant concepts, model structures and applications of Onehealth. We took the study of child nutrition interventions in Sudan for example and to present Onehealth tool's operating. As a new auxiliary and evidence-based decision-making software with scientific and rigorous theoretical approach, Onehealth has practical significance on the national or regional macro decision-making.
ObjectiveTo systematically review the status of economic evaluation of liver cancer screening in China, so as to provide reference for further studies.MethodsPubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CNKI, WanFang Data, CBM and VIP databases were searched to collect economic evaluation studies of liver cancer screening in China from inception to December, 2017. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and conducted descriptive analysis of basic characteristics, methods of economic evaluation and main results as well as quality and uniformity of reporting.ResultsA total of 5 studies were included. Among them, the starting age of screening were found to be 35 to 45 years old; α-fetoprotein (AFP) testing and ultrasound examination combined procedure and screening interval of every 6 months were mostly evaluated. The quality of the 5 studies was satisfactory, and the uniformity of reporting was relatively acceptable, with a median score of 78% (range: 60% ~ 78%). Two population-based studies reported cost per liver cancer detected (44 thousand and 575 thousand yuan). Three studies reported cost-effectiveness ratio(CER) based on life year saved (LYS) and quality adjusted life year (QALY). Among these results, only 1 study from mainland China reported CER based on LYS (1 775 yuan), and the calculated ratio of CER to local GDP per capita was estimated as 0.1, while 2 studies from Taiwan province reported 4 CERs, and the ratios of CER to local GDP per capita ranged from 1.0 to 2.2.ConclusionsInformation from liver cancer endemic areas such as Taiwan province indicates promising cost-effectiveness to conduct liver cancer screening in local general population, while data from mainland suggests that conducting liver cancer screening combining AFP and ultrasound in high-risk population will be cost-effective, however only supported by 1 regional study. This needs to be verified by further economic evaluations based on randomized controlled trials or cohort studies as well as health economic evaluations.
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.