Cost-utility analysis

成本效用分析
  • 文章类型: Systematic Review
    我们比较了相对收益,术中腹膜热化疗+细胞减灭术±全身化疗与细胞减灭术±全身化疗或单纯全身化疗对结肠直肠腹膜转移患者的危害和成本效益,通过系统评价胃癌或卵巢癌,元分析和基于模型的成本效用分析。
    我们搜索了MEDLINE,EMBASE,科克伦图书馆和科学引文索引,ClinicalTrials.gov和WHOICTRP试验登记至2022年4月14日。我们仅包括解决研究目标的随机对照试验。我们使用Cochrane偏倚风险工具版本2来评估随机对照试验中的偏倚风险。在适用时,我们使用随机效应模型进行数据合成。对于成本效益分析,我们使用美国国家健康与护理卓越研究所推荐的方法进行了基于模型的成本-效用分析.
    系统评价包括总共8项随机对照试验(7项随机对照试验,955名参与者纳入定量分析)。除III期或更高的上皮性卵巢癌以外的所有比较仅包含一项试验,表明缺乏提供数据的随机对照试验。对于结直肠癌,术中腹腔热化疗+细胞减灭术+全身化疗可能导致全因死亡率几乎没有差异(60.6%vs.60.6%;风险比1.00,95%置信区间0.63至1.58),与细胞减灭术±全身化疗相比,可能会增加严重不良事件的比例(25.6%vs.15.2%;风险比1.69,95%置信区间1.03~2.77)。与单纯以氟尿嘧啶为基础的全身化疗相比,术中腹腔热化疗+细胞减灭术+全身化疗可能会降低全因死亡率(40.8%vs.60.8%;风险比0.55,95%置信区间0.32至0.95)。对于胃癌,术中腹腔热化疗+细胞减灭术+全身化疗与细胞减灭术+全身化疗或单纯全身化疗对全因死亡率的影响存在高度不确定性.对于接受间隔细胞减灭术的III期或更高的上皮性卵巢癌,与细胞减灭术+全身化疗相比,术中腹腔热化疗+细胞减灭术+全身化疗可能降低全因死亡率(46.3%vs.57.4%;风险比0.73,95%置信区间0.57~0.93)。术中腹腔热化疗+细胞减灭术+全身化疗可能与细胞减灭术+全身化疗治疗结直肠癌的成本效益不同,但对于其余的比较可能是成本效益。
    我们无法按计划获取个体参与者数据。每次比较的随机对照试验数量有限,以及与健康相关的生活质量数据匮乏,这意味着随着新证据(来自偏倚风险较低的试验)的出现,建议可能会发生变化。
    在患有结肠直肠癌腹膜转移的人中,腹膜转移有限,并且可能承受大手术,在常规临床实践中不宜使用术中腹腔热化疗+细胞减灭术+全身化疗(强烈推荐)。对于胃癌和腹膜转移患者,是否应提供术中高温腹膜化疗+细胞减灭术+全身化疗或细胞减灭术+全身化疗存在相当大的不确定性(无推荐)。术中腹腔热化疗+细胞减灭术+全身化疗应常规用于III期或更高级别上皮性卵巢癌和局限于腹部的转移患者,需要并可能在化疗后经受间期细胞减灭术(强烈推荐)。
    需要更多的随机对照试验。
    本研究注册为PROSPEROCRD42019130504。
    该奖项由美国国家卫生与护理研究所(NIHR)卫生技术评估计划(NIHR奖编号:17/135/02)资助,并在《卫生技术评估》中全文发布。28号51.有关更多奖项信息,请参阅NIHR资助和奖励网站。
    肠癌,卵巢或胃可以扩散到腹部(“腹膜转移”)。通过注射或片剂(“全身化疗”)给予的化疗(使用旨在杀死癌细胞的药物)是主要的治疗选择之一。对于增加细胞减灭术(细胞减灭术;切除癌症的手术)和“术中腹膜热化疗”(在细胞减灭术中进入腹部衬里的热化疗)是否有益,存在不确定性。我们回顾了截至2022年4月14日发表的所有医学文献信息,以回答上述不确定性。我们从八项试验中发现了以下内容,包括约1000名参与者。在患有肠癌腹膜转移的人中,与细胞减灭术+全身化疗相比,术中腹腔热化疗+细胞减灭术+全身化疗可能不会带来任何益处,也会增加伤害。与单纯全身化疗相比,细胞减灭术+全身化疗似乎能提高生存率。对于胃癌腹膜转移患者的最佳治疗方法存在不确定性。在患有卵巢癌腹膜转移的女性中,在进行细胞减灭术之前需要进行全身化疗以缩小癌症以进行手术(“晚期卵巢癌”),与细胞减灭术+全身化疗相比,术中腹腔热化疗+细胞减灭术+全身化疗可能会增加生存率。在能够承受大手术并且可以切除癌症的人中,肿瘤细胞减灭术+全身化疗应提供给患有肠癌腹膜转移的人,对于“晚期卵巢癌”腹膜转移的女性,应提供术中高温腹膜化疗+细胞减灭术+全身化疗。胃癌治疗的不确定性仍在继续。该奖项由美国国家卫生与护理研究所(NIHR)卫生技术评估计划(NIHR奖ref:17/135/02)资助,并在《卫生技术评估》中全文发表;28号51.有关更多奖项信息,请参阅NIHR资助和奖励网站。
    UNASSIGNED: We compared the relative benefits, harms and cost-effectiveness of hyperthermic intraoperative peritoneal chemotherapy + cytoreductive surgery ± systemic chemotherapy versus cytoreductive surgery ± systemic chemotherapy or systemic chemotherapy alone in people with peritoneal metastases from colorectal, gastric or ovarian cancers by a systematic review, meta-analysis and model-based cost-utility analysis.
    UNASSIGNED: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and the Science Citation Index, ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO ICTRP trial registers until 14 April 2022. We included only randomised controlled trials addressing the research objectives. We used the Cochrane risk of bias tool version 2 to assess the risk of bias in randomised controlled trials. We used the random-effects model for data synthesis when applicable. For the cost-effectiveness analysis, we performed a model-based cost-utility analysis using methods recommended by The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence.
    UNASSIGNED: The systematic review included a total of eight randomised controlled trials (seven randomised controlled trials, 955 participants included in the quantitative analysis). All comparisons other than those for stage III or greater epithelial ovarian cancer contained only one trial, indicating the paucity of randomised controlled trials that provided data. For colorectal cancer, hyperthermic intraoperative peritoneal chemotherapy + cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy probably results in little to no difference in all-cause mortality (60.6% vs. 60.6%; hazard ratio 1.00, 95% confidence interval 0.63 to 1.58) and may increase the serious adverse event proportions compared to cytoreductive surgery ± systemic chemotherapy (25.6% vs. 15.2%; risk ratio 1.69, 95% confidence interval 1.03 to 2.77). Hyperthermic intraoperative peritoneal chemotherapy + cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy probably decreases all-cause mortality compared to fluorouracil-based systemic chemotherapy alone (40.8% vs. 60.8%; hazard ratio 0.55, 95% confidence interval 0.32 to 0.95). For gastric cancer, there is high uncertainty about the effects of hyperthermic intraoperative peritoneal chemotherapy + cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy versus cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy or systemic chemotherapy alone on all-cause mortality. For stage III or greater epithelial ovarian cancer undergoing interval cytoreductive surgery, hyperthermic intraoperative peritoneal chemotherapy + cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy probably decreases all-cause mortality compared to cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy (46.3% vs. 57.4%; hazard ratio 0.73, 95% confidence interval 0.57 to 0.93). Hyperthermic intraoperative peritoneal chemotherapy + cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy may not be cost-effective versus cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy for colorectal cancer but may be cost-effective for the remaining comparisons.
    UNASSIGNED: We were unable to obtain individual participant data as planned. The limited number of randomised controlled trials for each comparison and the paucity of data on health-related quality of life mean that the recommendations may change as new evidence (from trials with a low risk of bias) emerges.
    UNASSIGNED: In people with peritoneal metastases from colorectal cancer with limited peritoneal metastases and who are likely to withstand major surgery, hyperthermic intraoperative peritoneal chemotherapy + cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy should not be used in routine clinical practice (strong recommendation). There is considerable uncertainty as to whether hyperthermic intraoperative peritoneal chemotherapy + cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy or cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy should be offered to patients with gastric cancer and peritoneal metastases (no recommendation). Hyperthermic intraoperative peritoneal chemotherapy + cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy should be offered routinely to women with stage III or greater epithelial ovarian cancer and metastases confined to the abdomen requiring and likely to withstand interval cytoreductive surgery after chemotherapy (strong recommendation).
    UNASSIGNED: More randomised controlled trials are necessary.
    UNASSIGNED: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42019130504.
    UNASSIGNED: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 17/135/02) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 51. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.
    Cancers of the bowel, ovary or stomach can spread to the lining of the abdomen (‘peritoneal metastases’). Chemotherapy (the use of drugs that aim to kill cancer cells) given by injection or tablets (‘systemic chemotherapy’) is one of the main treatment options. There is uncertainty about whether adding cytoreductive surgery (cytoreductive surgery; an operation to remove the cancer) and ‘hyperthermic intraoperative peritoneal chemotherapy’ (warm chemotherapy delivered into the lining of the abdomen during cytoreductive surgery) are beneficial. We reviewed all the information from medical literature published until 14 April 2022, to answer the above uncertainty. We found the following from eight trials, including about 1000 participants. In people with peritoneal metastases from bowel cancer, hyperthermic intraoperative peritoneal chemotherapy + cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy probably does not provide any benefits and increases harm compared to cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy, while cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy appears to increase survival compared to systemic chemotherapy alone. There is uncertainty about the best treatment for people with peritoneal metastases from stomach cancer. In women with peritoneal metastases from ovarian cancer who require systemic chemotherapy before cytoreductive surgery to shrink the cancer to allow surgery (‘advanced ovarian cancer’), hyperthermic intraoperative peritoneal chemotherapy + cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy probably increases survival compared to cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy. In people who can withstand a major operation and in whom cancer can be removed, cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy should be offered to people with peritoneal metastases from bowel cancer, while hyperthermic intraoperative peritoneal chemotherapy + cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy should be offered to women with peritoneal metastases from ‘advanced ovarian cancer’. Uncertainty in treatment continues for gastric cancer. This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 17/135/02) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 51. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    林奇综合征是一种遗传性疾病,导致结直肠的风险增加,子宫内膜癌和卵巢癌。一旦完成生育,通常建议进行降低风险的手术来控制妇科癌症的风险。妇科结肠镜检查作为一种临时措施或代替降低风险的手术的价值尚不确定。我们旨在确定妇科监测在林奇综合征中是否有效和具有成本效益。
    我们对Lynch综合征妇科癌症监测的有效性和成本效益进行了系统评价,以及与癌症和妇科风险降低相关的健康效用值的系统评价。研究识别包括书目数据库搜索和引文追踪(搜索于2021年8月3日更新)。纳入资格的筛选和评估由独立研究人员进行。预后是预先指定的,并由临床专家和患者参与告知。进行了数据提取和质量评估,并对结果进行了叙述综合。我们还使用离散事件模拟方法开发了Lynch综合征的全病经济模型,包括结直肠的自然史成分,子宫内膜癌和卵巢癌,我们使用该模型对妇科风险管理策略进行了成本效用分析,包括监视,降低手术风险,无所事事。
    我们发现30项临床有效性研究,其中20项为非比较(单臂)研究。没有高质量的研究提供低偏倚风险的精确结果估计。有证据表明,监测的死亡率高于降低风险的手术,但没有监测的死亡率也高于监测的死亡率。通过监测发现了一些无症状的癌症,但也错过了一些癌症。有各种各样的疼痛经历,包括一些人感觉不到疼痛,一些人感觉剧烈疼痛。使用止痛药(例如布洛芬)很常见,一些妇女接受了全身麻醉监测。现有的经济评估清楚地发现,降低风险的手术可带来最佳的终生健康(使用质量调整的寿命年衡量),并且具有成本效益,而相比之下,监测并不划算。我们的经济评估发现,单独监测或提供监测和降低风险的手术策略具有成本效益,除了path_PMS2林奇综合征。仅提供降低风险的手术不如提供有或没有手术的监视有效。
    由于缺乏高质量的研究,无法得出关于临床有效性的确切结论。我们没有假设女性会立即接受降低风险的手术,如果手术在提供时接受,降低风险的手术可能会更有效和更具成本效益。
    根据临床理由,没有足够的证据推荐或反对林奇综合征的妇科癌症监测,但是建模表明,监控可能具有成本效益。需要进一步的研究,但它必须严格设计和良好的报告是有益的。
    本研究注册为PROSPEROCRD42020171098。
    该奖项由美国国家卫生与护理研究所(NIHR)卫生技术评估计划(NIHR奖参考:NIHR129713)资助,并在《卫生技术评估》中全文发表;卷。28号41.有关更多奖项信息,请参阅NIHR资助和奖励网站。
    林奇综合征是一种遗传性疾病,它使人们患肠癌的风险更高,子宫癌和卵巢癌。尽管患有林奇综合症的人更容易患上这些癌症,如果他们得了癌症,他们更有可能存活下来。被诊断患有林奇综合征的人使用相机进行定期测试(监视),以检查肠癌或息肉。对于子宫和卵巢癌,监视也可能是一种选择,但在这些癌症中研究较少。这意味着许多妇女没有被监视。患有Lynch综合征的女性被建议在风险开始上升时进行降低风险的手术,如果他们不想要更多的孩子。我们想知道子宫和卵巢癌的监测是否有效,是否物有所值。医生和患者说,这些都是重要的研究问题。我们搜索了关于这个主题的已发表的研究,发现了很多研究,但是这些研究通常很小或设计得不好,所以他们只能告诉我们有限的数量。研究并不总是衡量患者想知道的事情。有一些证据表明,有监视的人可能比没有监视的人寿命更长,但也有一些证据表明,降低风险的手术比监测更好。监测发现了一些没有症状的癌症,但是在一次监视访问后不久,也没有发现任何癌症。人们经常觉得监视很痛苦,但经验各不相同。我们的工作表明,对于许多患有林奇综合征的女性来说,监测和手术可能是物有所值的。我们需要更好的研究来帮助患者和医生确定监视是否适合他们。
    UNASSIGNED: Lynch syndrome is an inherited condition which leads to an increased risk of colorectal, endometrial and ovarian cancer. Risk-reducing surgery is generally recommended to manage the risk of gynaecological cancer once childbearing is completed. The value of gynaecological colonoscopic surveillance as an interim measure or instead of risk-reducing surgery is uncertain. We aimed to determine whether gynaecological surveillance was effective and cost-effective in Lynch syndrome.
    UNASSIGNED: We conducted systematic reviews of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of gynaecological cancer surveillance in Lynch syndrome, as well as a systematic review of health utility values relating to cancer and gynaecological risk reduction. Study identification included bibliographic database searching and citation chasing (searches updated 3 August 2021). Screening and assessment of eligibility for inclusion were conducted by independent researchers. Outcomes were prespecified and were informed by clinical experts and patient involvement. Data extraction and quality appraisal were conducted and results were synthesised narratively. We also developed a whole-disease economic model for Lynch syndrome using discrete event simulation methodology, including natural history components for colorectal, endometrial and ovarian cancer, and we used this model to conduct a cost-utility analysis of gynaecological risk management strategies, including surveillance, risk-reducing surgery and doing nothing.
    UNASSIGNED: We found 30 studies in the review of clinical effectiveness, of which 20 were non-comparative (single-arm) studies. There were no high-quality studies providing precise outcome estimates at low risk of bias. There is some evidence that mortality rate is higher for surveillance than for risk-reducing surgery but mortality is also higher for no surveillance than for surveillance. Some asymptomatic cancers were detected through surveillance but some cancers were also missed. There was a wide range of pain experiences, including some individuals feeling no pain and some feeling severe pain. The use of pain relief (e.g. ibuprofen) was common, and some women underwent general anaesthetic for surveillance. Existing economic evaluations clearly found that risk-reducing surgery leads to the best lifetime health (measured using quality-adjusted life-years) and is cost-effective, while surveillance is not cost-effective in comparison. Our economic evaluation found that a strategy of surveillance alone or offering surveillance and risk-reducing surgery was cost-effective, except for path_PMS2 Lynch syndrome. Offering only risk-reducing surgery was less effective than offering surveillance with or without surgery.
    UNASSIGNED: Firm conclusions about clinical effectiveness could not be reached because of the lack of high-quality research. We did not assume that women would immediately take up risk-reducing surgery if offered, and it is possible that risk-reducing surgery would be more effective and cost-effective if it was taken up when offered.
    UNASSIGNED: There is insufficient evidence to recommend for or against gynaecological cancer surveillance in Lynch syndrome on clinical grounds, but modelling suggests that surveillance could be cost-effective. Further research is needed but it must be rigorously designed and well reported to be of benefit.
    UNASSIGNED: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42020171098.
    UNASSIGNED: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR129713) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 41. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.
    Lynch syndrome is an inherited condition which puts people at a higher risk of getting bowel cancer, womb cancer and ovarian cancer. Although people with Lynch syndrome are more likely to get these cancers, they are more likely to survive cancer if they get it. People diagnosed with Lynch syndrome get regular testing (surveillance) using a camera to check for bowel cancer or polyps. For womb and ovarian cancer, surveillance may also be an option, but it is less well studied in these cancers. This means that many women are not offered surveillance. Women with Lynch syndrome are recommended to have risk-reducing surgery when their risk starts rising, if they do not want any more children. We wanted to find out whether surveillance for womb and ovarian cancer would work and would be good value for money. Doctors and patients have said that these are important research questions. We searched for published research on this subject and found a lot of studies, but these studies were often small or not well designed, so they could only tell us a limited amount. Studies did not always measure the things that patients want to know. There was some evidence that people having surveillance might live longer than people not having surveillance, but there was also some evidence that risk-reducing surgery is better than surveillance. Surveillance has detected some cancers which had no symptoms, but there are also cancers diagnosed soon after a surveillance visit where nothing was found. People often find surveillance painful, but experiences vary. Our work shows that surveillance and surgery could be good value for money for many women with Lynch syndrome. We need better research to help patients and doctors decide whether surveillance is right for them.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    暂无摘要。
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    这项研究旨在评估romiplostim(ROMI)与eltrombopag(EPAG)作为中国成年人慢性原发性免疫性血小板减少症(cITP)的二线治疗的成本效用。从中国医疗保健系统的角度,使用具有生命周期的决策树嵌入式马尔可夫模型来估计ROMI和EPAG的质量调整生命年(QALYs)和成本。该模型由4周周期的血小板反应驱动。QALY和成本均为每年5%的折扣。通过匹配调整间接比较(MAIC)获得比较ROMI和EPAG的临床数据,利用ROMI的个体患者数据和EPAG的已发表的中国III期试验数据。成本以2022年美元为单位报告,包括药品采购成本,监控成本,出血相关费用,以及与不良事件相关的成本。进行确定性和概率敏感性分析。CEA模型表明,用ROMI治疗导致0.004QALYs的平均费用增加4,344.4美元。单向敏感性分析(OSA)表明,该模型对EPAG和ROMI的高出血率(马尔可夫阶段)最敏感。概率敏感性分析(PSA)表明,ROMI在0.16%的案例中可能具有成本效益,每个QALY的支付意愿阈值为12039.1美元(2022年中国人均GDP)。如果ROMI的价格低于或等于EPAG的价格,ROMI作为中国成人cITP的二线治疗可能被认为具有成本效益。
    This study aimed to assess the cost-utility of romiplostim (ROMI) compared to eltrombopag (EPAG) as a second-line treatment for chronic primary immune thrombocytopenia (cITP) in Chinese adults. A decision tree-embedded Markov model with a lifetime horizon was used to estimate the quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and costs for ROMI versus EPAG from the perspective of the Chinese health care system. The model was driven by platelet response with a 4-week cycle. Both QALYs and costs were discounted 5% per year. Clinical data comparing ROMI and EPAG were obtained by matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC), utilizing individual patient data on ROMI and published Chinese Phase III trial data on EPAG. Costs were reported in 2022 US dollars and included drug acquisition costs, monitoring costs, bleeding-related costs, and costs associated with adverse events. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. The CEA model indicated that treatment with ROMI resulted in an average of $4,344.4 higher costs for 0.004 QALYs. One-way sensitivity analysis (OSA) indicated that the model was most sensitive to the high bleeding rate in response (Markov stage) for EPAG and ROMI. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) indicated that ROMI was likely to be cost effective in 0.16% cases at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $12039.1 (China per capita GDP in 2022) per QALY. If the price of ROMI is either lower than or equal to that of EPAG, ROMI could likely be considered cost-effective as a second-line treatment for Chinese adults with cITP.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    流感感染可引起心力衰竭(HF)患者的心血管事件,通过疫苗接种降低潜在风险。本研究旨在评估中国HF患者流感疫苗接种的成本-效果。
    我们开发了一个3个月周期的马尔可夫模型,以模拟在3年内对HF患者施用流感疫苗的成本效益。模型中的患者接受了流感疫苗或安慰剂,除了标准的HF治疗。成本数据,来自《中国医疗保健统计年鉴》和其他公共记录,以及IVVE(流感疫苗预防HF不良血管事件)试验的有效性数据,被合并。具体来说,流感疫苗的费用为75元人民币(CNY)(11美元),心力衰竭(HHF)的住院费用为9,326元(1,386美元),肺炎的治疗费用为5,984元人民币(889美元)。这项研究的主要结果,增量成本效益比(ICER),量化每个增量质量调整寿命年(QALY)的增量成本(人民币和美元)。其他结果包括总成本,总效力,增量成本,和增量有效性。我们进行了单向和概率敏感性分析(PSA)来评估确定性和不确定性,分别。情景分析,考虑到各种情况,进行评估结果的稳健性。
    在基本情况分析中,流感疫苗,与安慰剂相比,在中国HF患者中,导致成本从21,004元(3,121美元)增加到21,062元(3,130美元),QALY从1.89增加到1.92(2.55寿命年与2.57生命年)每位患者。由此产生的ICER为每QALY2,331元人民币(346美元)[每生命年2,080元人民币(309美元)],低于基于人均GDP的支付意愿门槛。单因素敏感性分析显示,两组间HHF和心血管死亡率的差异对ICER的影响最为显著,而疫苗的成本产生了边际影响。PSA和情景分析共同肯定了我们研究结果的稳健性。
    这项研究表明,将流感疫苗添加到中国HF患者的标准治疗方案中可能是一种极具成本效益的选择。进一步的真实世界数据研究对于验证这些发现至关重要。
    UNASSIGNED: Influenza infection induces cardiovascular events in heart failure (HF) patients, with potential risk reduction through vaccination. This study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of influenza vaccination for HF patients in China.
    UNASSIGNED: We developed a Markov model with a 3-month cycle to simulate the cost-effectiveness of administering the influenza vaccine to patients with HF over a 3-year period. Patients in the model received either the influenza vaccine or a placebo, in addition to standard HF treatment. Cost data, sourced from the China Healthcare Statistic Yearbook and other public records, and effectiveness data from the IVVE (Influenza Vaccine to Prevent Adverse Vascular Events in HF) trial, were incorporated. Specifically, the cost of the influenza vaccine was 75 Chinese Yuan (CNY) (11 USD), the cost of hospitalization for heart failure (HHF) was 9,326 CNY (1,386 USD), and the cost of treatment for pneumonia was 5,984 CNY (889 USD). The study\'s primary outcome, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), quantifies the incremental cost (CNY and USD) per incremental quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Additional outcomes included total cost, total effectiveness, incremental cost, and incremental effectiveness. We conducted one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) to assess certainty and uncertainty, respectively. Scenario analysis, considering various situations, was performed to evaluate the robustness of the results.
    UNASSIGNED: In the base case analysis, influenza vaccine, compared to placebo, among Chinese HF patients, resulted in a cost increase from 21,004 CNY (3,121 USD) to 21,062 CNY (3,130 USD) and in QALYs from 1.89 to 1.92 (2.55 life years vs. 2.57 life years) per patient. The resulting ICER was 2,331 CNY (346 USD) per QALY [2,080 CNY (309 USD) per life year], falling below the willingness-to-pay threshold based on per capita GDP. One-way sensitivity analysis revealed that disparities in HHF and cardiovascular death rates between groups had the most significant impact on the ICER, while the cost of vaccines had a marginal impact. PSA and scenario analysis collectively affirmed the robustness of our findings.
    UNASSIGNED: This study suggests that adding the influenza vaccine to standard treatment regimens for Chinese patients with HF may represent a highly cost-effective option. Further real-world data studies are essential to validate these findings.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    目的:关于指导男性前列腺癌管理决策的决策辅助手段的成本效益的证据有限。与常规护理(无决策帮助)相比,我们检查了Navigate在线决策帮助对前列腺癌男性的成本效用。
    方法:从政府医疗保健的角度构建了具有10年时间范围的马尔可夫模型。来自Navigate试验(n=302)和相关已发表研究的数据用于模型输入。计算了这两种策略的增量成本和质量调整寿命年(QALY)。进行了单向和概率敏感性分析,以解决模型的不确定性。
    平均而言,与9559澳元(95%UIAU$8177-AU$11017)和7.03QALYs(95%UI6.67-7.31)或常规护理相比,导航策略的成本估计为8899澳元(95%UI$7509-AU$10438)和7.08QALYs(95%UI6.67-7.31)。导航策略主导了日常护理,因为它节省了成本和更高的QALY,尽管两种结局的差异在10年以上都很小。在常规可接受的每QALY50000澳元的阈值下,导航具有成本效益的可能性为99.7%。这项研究受到可用性的限制,质量,以及模型中使用的数据的选择。
    结论:与澳大利亚的常规治疗相比,对前列腺癌男性使用在线决策辅助似乎具有成本效益。由主动监测的更高接受度和吸收率驱动。更广泛地实施决策辅助工具可以更好地告知被诊断患有前列腺癌的男性他们的管理选择。
    结果:我们研究了在线决策辅助的成本效益,以指导澳大利亚前列腺癌患者选择治疗方案。我们发现这种决策援助具有成本效益,主要是因为更多的男性选择了主动监测.告知患者其管理选择的决策辅助工具应在医疗保健中更广泛地使用。
    OBJECTIVE: Evidence on the cost effectiveness of decision aids to guide management decisions for men with prostate cancer is limited. We examined the cost utility of the Navigate online decision aid for men with prostate cancer in comparison to usual care (no decision aid).
    METHODS: A Markov model with a 10-yr time horizon was constructed from a government health care perspective. Data from the Navigate trial (n = 302) and relevant published studies were used for model inputs. Incremental costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were calculated for the two strategies. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were undertaken to address model uncertainty.
    UNASSIGNED: On average, the Navigate strategy was estimated to cost AU$8899 (95% uncertainty interval [UI] AU$7509-AU$10438) and produce 7.08 QALYs (95% UI 6.73-7.36) in comparison to AU$9559 (95% UI AU$8177-AU$11017) and 7.03 QALYs (95% UI 6.67-7.31) or usual care. The Navigate strategy dominated usual care as it produced cost-savings and higher QALYs, although differences for both outcomes were small over 10 yr. The likelihood of Navigate being cost effective at a conventionally acceptable threshold of AU$50000 per QALY gained was 99.7%. This study is limited by the availability, quality, and choice of the data used in the model.
    CONCLUSIONS: Use of an online decision aid for men with prostate cancer appears to be cost effective relative to usual care in Australia, driven by the higher acceptance and uptake of active surveillance. Wider implementation of decision aids may better inform men diagnosed with prostate cancer about their management options.
    RESULTS: We looked at the cost effectiveness of an online decision aid for guiding Australian men with prostate cancer in choosing a management option. We found that this decision aid was cost effective, mainly because more men chose active surveillance. Decision aids that inform patients about their management options should be more widely used in health care.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    效用值提供了一种定量方法来评估新型癌症治疗对患者生活质量(QoL)的影响。然而,可用于评估QoL的多种方法在不同上下文中选择最合适的方法时面临挑战。
    这篇综述为癌症临床医生和研究人员提供了评估QoL的经济评估方法的概述,包括独立和派生的基于偏好的度量(PBMs)和直接偏好激发方法。描述了最近的事态发展,包括癌症特异性PBM与通用PBM的比较性能,超出健康相关QoL的结果测量,并更多地使用离散选择实验来引出偏好。提供了建议和注意事项,以指导癌症研究方法的选择。
    鉴于EORTCQLQ-C30和FACT-G在癌症研究中的广泛使用,我们预计将继续在癌症临床试验中采用QLU-C10D和FACT-8D。虽然这些癌症特异性PBM提供了在不需要独立PBM的情况下获取效用值的便利,研究人员应该考虑潜在的限制,如果他们打算用通用PBM代替它们。随着领域的发展,更需要就癌症临床试验中各种方法的选择和整合方法达成共识.
    UNASSIGNED: Utility values offer a quantitative means to evaluate the impact of novel cancer treatments on patients\' quality of life (QoL). However, the multiple methods available for valuing QoL present challenges in selecting the most appropriate method across different contexts.
    UNASSIGNED: This review provides cancer clinicians and researchers with an overview of methods to value QoL for economic evaluations, including standalone and derived preference-based measures (PBMs) and direct preference elicitation methods. Recent developments are described, including the comparative performance of cancer-specific PBMs versus generic PBMs, measurement of outcomes beyond health-related QoL, and increased use of discrete choice experiments to elicit preferences. Recommendations and considerations are provided to guide the choice of method for cancer research.
    UNASSIGNED: We foresee continued adoption of the QLU-C10D and FACT-8D in cancer clinical trials given the extensive use of the EORTC QLQ-C30 and FACT-G in cancer research. While these cancer-specific PBMs offer the convenience of eliciting utility values without needing a standalone PBM, researchers should consider potential limitations if they intend to substitute them for generic PBMs. As the field advances, there is a greater need for consensus on the approach to selection and integration of various methods in cancer clinical trials.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    目的:目前对精神分裂症反复发作及相关疾病患者的推荐治疗是抗精神病药物治疗。然而,许多抗精神病药物使用者仍然功能受损,并经历严重的身体和精神副作用。本研究旨在评估逐步减少和停用抗精神病药物的成本效益,与24个月的心理健康服务维持治疗相比,健康和社会护理,和社会观点。
    方法:19项精神健康信托基金招募患者参加RADAR随机对照试验。根据患者报告的EQ-5D-5L计算质量调整生命年(QALYs),根据患者报告的ICACAP-A计算出的全部能力年数(YFC)。从医疗记录中收集精神卫生服务的使用和药物。其他资源使用和生产率损失是使用自填问卷收集的。成本是从公布的来源计算出来的。
    结果:253名参与者被随机分配:126名被分配到抗精神病药物剂量减少和127名被分配到维持。从任何角度来看,武器之间的总成本没有显着差异。QALYs没有显着差异(-0.035;95%CI:-0.123至0.052),而与维持组相比,减少组的YFCs显著较低(基线校正差值:-0.103;95%CI:-0.192~-0.014).减少策略以维护所有分析为主,不太可能具有成本效益。
    结论:对于长期服用抗精神病药物的精神分裂症和其他复发性精神病患者,与维持两年相比,逐步减少和停用抗精神病药物的策略不太可能具有成本效益。
    OBJECTIVE: The current recommended treatment for patients with recurrent episodes of schizophrenia and related conditions is antipsychotic medication. However, many antipsychotic users remain functionally impaired and experience serious physical and mental side effects. This study aims to assess the cost-effectiveness of a gradual antipsychotic reduction and discontinuation strategy compared to maintenance treatment over 24 months from a mental health services, health and social care, and societal perspectives.
    METHODS: Nineteen mental health trusts recruited patients to the RADAR randomised controlled trial. Quality adjusted life years (QALYs) were calculated from patient-reported EQ-5D-5L, with years of full capability (YFCs) calculated from the patient-reported ICECAP-A. Mental health services use and medication was collected from medical records. Other resource use and productivity loss was collected using self-completed questionnaires. Costs were calculated from published sources.
    RESULTS: 253 participants were randomised: 126 assigned to antipsychotic dose reduction and 127 to maintenance. There were no significant differences between arms in total costs for any perspectives. There were no significant difference in QALYs (-0.035; 95% CI: -0.123 to 0.052), whereas YFCs were significantly lower in the reduction arm compared to the maintenance arm (baseline-adjusted difference: -0.103; 95% CI: -0.192 to -0.014). The reduction strategy was dominated by maintenance for all analyses and was not likely to be cost-effective.
    CONCLUSIONS: It is unlikely that gradual antipsychotic reduction and discontinuation strategy is cost-effective compared with maintenance over two-years for patients with schizophrenia and other recurrent psychotic disorders who are on long-term antipsychotics.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    为了确定晚期/复发性非鳞状非小细胞肺癌(NSCLC)患者的适当治疗方法,通过基因检测进行伴随诊断以检测驱动突变.在日本,使用下一代测序(NGS)的OncomineDx目标测试(DxTT)可以全面检测基因突变或单基因测试作为伴随诊断进行。此外,进行了成本-效果分析,以比较使用NGS的OncomineDxTT与日本单基因检测的成本-效果.
    目标人群包括晚期/复发性非鳞状细胞肺癌患者。为OncomineDxTT策略和三个单基因测试构建了模型结构(即,表皮生长因子受体(EGFR)突变和间变性淋巴瘤激酶(ALK)/c-ros癌基因1(ROS1)重排),参考以前的研究和日本2022年肺癌临床实践指南。模型结构假设将进行基因检测,一线治疗使用2022年日本肺癌临床实践指南中最推荐的药物,根据驱动突变,.模型输入来自日本的文献和价格表,并进行了成本效用分析。
    对于OncomineDxTT策略,预计增量成本和有效性估计约为172,361日元(12,285,228日元与策略A和策略B的12,112,867日元,分别)和每位患者-0.51质量调整生命年(QALY)(21.93QALYvs.22.44策略A和B的QALY)。因此,成本增加,但效果下降。因此,OncomineDxTT策略由三个单基因测试主导。敏感性和情景分析表明,OncomineDxTT的测试成功率会影响结果。
    与三种单基因检测(EGFR/ALK/ROS1)相比,一线治疗前使用OncomineDxTT进行的基因检测对晚期/复发性非鳞状细胞肺癌患者的成本效益不高。
    UNASSIGNED: To determine the appropriate treatment for patients with advanced/recurrent nonsquamous non‒small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), a companion diagnostic was conducted to detect driver mutations through genetic testing. In Japan, Oncomine Dx Target Test (DxTT) using next-generation sequencing (NGS) that can comprehensively detect gene mutations or single-gene tests are conducted as companion diagnostics. Furthermore, cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted to compare the cost-effectiveness of Oncomine DxTT using NGS with that of single-gene test in Japan.
    UNASSIGNED: The target population included patients with advanced/recurrent nonsquamous NSCLC. A model structure was constructed for the Oncomine DxTT strategy and three single-gene tests (i.e., epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations and anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)/c-ros oncogene 1 (ROS1) rearrangements) with reference to previous studies and the Clinical Practice Guidelines of Lung Cancer 2022 in Japan. The model structure assumed that genetic testing would be conducted and first-line treatment used the drug most recommended in the 2022 Japanese Lung Cancer Clinical Practice Guidelines, depending on the driver mutation,. Model inputs were obtained from the literature and price list in Japan, and cost-utility analysis was conducted.
    UNASSIGNED: For the Oncomine DxTT strategy, the expected incremental costs and effectiveness were estimated to be approximately JPY 172,361 (JPY 12,285,228 vs. JPY 12,112,867 for strategies A and B, respectively) and -0.51 quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) per patient (21.93 QALY vs. 22.44 QALY for strategies A and B). As a result, the costs increased but the effectiveness decreased. Therefore, the Oncomine DxTT strategy was dominated by the three single-gene tests. Sensitivity and scenario analyses revealed that the test success rate of Oncomine DxTT affected the results.
    UNASSIGNED: The genetic test using Oncomine DxTT before the first-line treatment is not cost-effective compared with the three single-gene tests (EGFR/ALK/ROS1) for patients with advanced/recurrent nonsquamous NSCLC.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    化疗有助于延长恶性淋巴瘤患者的生存期,提高他们的生活质量(QOL)。尽管患者的生活质量最终下降,初始化疗的影响仍然知之甚少.在接受初始化疗的恶性淋巴瘤患者中进行前瞻性患者报告的QOL调查,针对在Gifu市政医院(Gifu,日本)2021年1月至2022年12月。基于EuroQol5维度进行化疗前后调查。使用官方价格计算药品成本,并通过成本效用分析从成本支付者的角度进行分析。在本研究纳入的60名患者中,28例弥漫性大B细胞淋巴瘤。环磷酰胺,阿霉素,长春新碱,泼尼松龙±利妥昔单抗治疗是最常见的治疗方法(38例患者),并且由于其最低的成本和效用值的变化而表现出优异的成本-效果.恶性淋巴瘤患者的初始化疗通常会改善QOL。临床试验注册:UMIN000042868(2020年12月28日注册)。
    Chemotherapy has helped prolong survival in patients with malignant lymphoma, enhancing their quality of life (QOL). Despite the eventual decline in the QOL of patients, the impact of initial chemotherapy remains poorly understood. A prospective patient-reported QOL survey among patients with malignant lymphoma receiving initial chemotherapy was conducted, targeting those treated at Gifu Municipal Hospital (Gifu, Japan) between January 2021 and December 2022. Surveys were conducted pre- and post-chemotherapy based on the EuroQol 5 dimensions. Drug costs were calculated using official prices and analyzed from the cost payer\'s perspective via cost-utility analysis. Among the 60 patients included in the present study, 28 had diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisolone ± rituximab therapy was the most common treatment (38 patients) and demonstrated superior cost-effectiveness due to its lowest cost and change in utility value. Initial chemotherapy for patients with malignant lymphoma generally improved the QOL. Clinical trial registration: UMIN000042868 (registered on December 28, 2020).
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

公众号