ObjectiveTo compare medical cost and utilization efficiency of medical resources between manual layered anastomosis with mechanical stapling technique in esophagectomy. MethodsClinical data of 132 patients who underwent surgical resection of esophageal carcinoma in the Department of Thoracic Surgery of Gansu Tumor Hospital between January and October 2011 were respectively analyzed. According to different anastomotic techniques, all the patients were divided into a manual layered anastomosis group (including 40 males and 20 females with their age of 36-72 (49.3±7.6) years) and a mechanical stapling technique group (including 50 males and 22 females with their age of 30-79 (51.0±8.6) years). Demographic data, operation data, postoperative complications, direct and indirect medical cost, and constitution of direct medical cost were compared between the 2 groups. ResultsMedical cost of esophagectomy was 14 505.03± 1 523.37 yuan in the manual layered anastomosis group and 19 891.05±1 634.58 yuan in the mechanical stapling technique group respectively, which were statistically different (P < 0.05). Material cost was 2 242.00±751.08 yuan in the manual layered anastomosis group and 5 424.00±1 876.22 yuan in the mechanical stapling technique group respectively, which were statistically different (P < 0.05). Cost-effectiveness analysis showed that cost-effectiveness ratio in the manual layered anastomosis group was lower, thus this anastomotic technique was more reasonable. ConclusionMedical cost of manual layered anastomosis is lower than that of mechanical stapling technique in esophagectomy, as the utilization efficiency of medical resources of manual layered anastomosis is higher than that of mechanical stapling technique.
Economic evaluation used alongside clinical trials has become a hot spot in the development of clinical studies. The definition and classification of the cost were introduced in this article. The ways to conduct cost analysis in clinical trials were introduced systematically, including the identification, collection and analysis of the data of costs, and the concern of the analysis.
The calculation of sample size is a critical component in the design phase of clinical trials incorporating health economic evaluations. A reasonable sample size is essential to ensure the scientific validity and accuracy of trial results. This paper summarizes the sample size calculation methods in the frequentist framework based on two health economic evaluation indicators: incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and net benefit and examines these methods in terms of their applicable conditions, advantages, and limitations. The ICER method derives the sample size calculation formula by computing the ratio of incremental cost to incremental effect, while the net benefit method determines the economic viability of interventions by calculating incremental net benefit, subsequently leading to the formulation of the sample size calculation. Furthermore, this paper briefly discusses other sample size calculation methods, such as the classical Bayesian approach and the value of information analysis, providing a reference for calculating sample size in clinical trials with integrated health economic evaluations.
Primary economic evaluations are needed in the case that the systematic review of existing economic evidence is not capable of informing economic profiles of marketed medicines. Following the first section of this programs, we presented the principles of designing a study, measuring costs and outcomes, and performing sensitivity analyses. Generally, four designs of economic evaluations are available to perform economic evaluations, each of which has specific strengths and weaknesses. Valuation of outcomes and costs may differ in methods, mainly based on the requirements and applicability of study. The possible factors leading to variation of results should be analyzed using analytic methods with different techniques.
Objective To systematically review the health economic evaluation studies of medicines for the treatment of acute myeloid leukemia (AML). MethodsThe PubMed, EMbase, Cochrane Library, CBM, CNKI, and WanFang Data, as well as the CRD database specifically for health economics were electronically searched from inception to June 2022, and related journals in the field of health economics and the websites of HTA institutions in various countries were manually searched. The quality of the studies was assessed using the CHEERS checklist. The basic characteristics of health economics evaluation publications were summarized, the quality of model structures and methodologies was assessed and economic evaluation results were compared among different treatments. Results A total of 17 studies were included, and cost-effectiveness analyses were conducted from the perspectives of the health system, patients, the whole society, and medical insurance payers. The economic evaluation models were relatively unified, but there were differences in methods and results reporting, and the quality needed to be improved. The research objects were mainly the comparison of hypomethylating agents, targeted medicine and traditional chemotherapy regimens, as well as the comparison of different chemotherapy combinations and different drug dosages. Conclusion Real-world studies are mainly focused on traditional chemotherapy regimens, and model-based health economic evaluations, such as Markov models, are more frequently applied to newly developed targeted drugs and demethylation drugs. Among all treatments, the chemotherapy regimens including cytarabine, midostaurin, and decitabine are found to be more cost-effective.
It is potential for N-of-1 trials to evaluate economics of health care, however, it is still in the exploratory stage. With the advantage of accurate estimation of costs and effects, it is beneficial to promote the application of N-of-1 trials for economic evaluation in the era of precision medicine. In this study, we introduce the necessity, feasibility, selection, calculation of indicators and influence factors of N-of-1 trials for economic evaluation, and in order to provide references for researchers to perform related studies.
With the continuous progress of national medical insurance strategic purchasing and value-based healthcare, pharmacoeconomic evaluation, serving as a technical tool for assessing the cost-effectiveness of healthcare interventions, has played an important role in policy decision support. Comparative efficacy evidence is the core data source for pharmacoeconomic evaluation, and also the foundation for conducting pharmacoeconomic research. In recent years, the number of innovative drugs approved based on single-arm trial has been increasing. Most existing randomized controlled clinical trials are also placebo-controlled or compared with traditional treatments, unable to directly meet the need for efficacy evidence of comparisons with conventional or standard treatments in pharmacoeconomic evaluations. In the absence of direct comparative efficacy evidence, exploring indirect comparison methods for efficacy has become a cutting-edge direction in pharmacoeconomic evaluation. Through a comprehensive literature review and systematic analysis, this study focuses on five indirect comparison methods based on individual patient data for population adjustment, including match adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC), simulated treatment comparison (STC), propensity score matching (PSM), inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) and network meta regression (NMR), and discussing their basic concepts, advantages and disadvantages and application comparisons. Finally, it provides methodological suggestions on how to choose an indirect comparison method for efficacy, with the aim of promoting the generation of higher-quality indirect comparison evidence for efficacy and advancing pharmacoeconomic evaluation to provide high-quality evidence references for healthcare policy decision-making.
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.
Objective To evaluate the ambulatory surgery mode by using health economical mothods and provide reference for optimization and decision of surgical operation mode. Methods The patients who underwent unilateral flexible ureteroscopic holmium laser lithotriphy for ureteral calculi in Xiangya Hospital, Central South University between January 1st to December 31th, 2015 were selected in this study, including 59 with ambulatory surgery mode (the ambulatory group) and 65 with special in-hospital surgery mode (the special group). The differences in average bed occupancy time, cost, therapeutic effect, and satisfaction between the two operation modes were compared. Results The average bed occupancy time in the ambulatory group and the special group was (1.03±0.18) and (6.35±0.74) days, respectively, and the difference was statistically significant (P<0.05). The patients in both groups were followed up for one month after the operation, and the incidence of complications was 6.8% (4/59) in the ambulatory group and 6.2% (4/65) in the special group, without significant difference (P>0.05). The satisfaction score in the ambulatory group and the special group was 96.48±0.23vs. 96.53±0.18 without significant difference (P>0.05). The differences in direct medical cost [(17 738.28±1 027.85)vs. (21 307.67±554.41) yuan], direct non-medical cost [(103.39±18.25) vs. (630.76±78.90) yuan], indirect cost[ (266.93±47.12) vs. (1 640.44±190.55) yuan], and total cost [(18 128.10±1 037.76) vs. (23 558.29±619.20) yuan] between the ambulatory group and the special group were all statistically significant (P<0.05). The treatment effect index in the ambulatory group and the special group was 0.96 and 1.05, respectively; the cost-effect ratio was 18 883.44 and 22 436.47, respectively. Sensitivity analysis showed that the adjusted cost-effect ratio in the ambulatory group (16 629.64) was still lower than that in the special group (20 534.91). Conclusions The cost-effect ratio of ambulatory surgery mode is superior than that of special in-hospital surgery mode, and there is no obvious difference in patients satisfaction between the two modes. Ambulatory surgery mode can be recommended to patients who meet the indications of day surgery.