德谷门冬双胰岛素对比甘精胰岛素治疗口服降糖药控制不佳的中国2型糖尿病患者的成本-效果

目的 评价口服降糖药控制不佳的中国2型糖尿病患者应用德谷门冬双胰岛素治疗的长期成本-效果.方法 基于IQVIA CORE糖尿病模型,计算德谷门冬双胰岛素和甘精胰岛素治疗30年的成本和健康产出,并进行增量成本-效果分析.患者的基线特征、临床效果数据基于Onishi研究(临床试验注册号NCT01272193)、Step b...     

莫西沙星注射液与左氧氟沙星注射液随机对照治疗社区获得性肺炎药物经济学评价

目的评价莫西沙星注射液与左氧氟沙星注射液治疗社区获得性肺炎安全性﹑有效性并对两组的医疗费用进行药物经济学评价。方法采用区组随机、开放、平行对照设计方法;各种社区获得性肺炎符合方案集（PP）分析人群73例,将其随机分为两组,A组37例采用莫西沙星注射液400mg,qdivgtt;B组36例采用左氧氟沙星注射液200mg,bidivgtt。运用药物经济学最小成本分析法、成本-效果分析法推算每例治疗成本并进行分析评价。结果两组临床痊愈率和总有效率分别为64.9%、89.2%和63.9%、88.9%,不良反应发生率分别为10.9%和8.7%。治愈每例患者所需药品的最小成本（5386.0±1795.4）元和（2182.2±727.4）元;以临床总有效率计C/E分别为（58.9±19.6）和（35.4±11.8）;ΔC/ΔE为7004。结论虽然莫西沙星疗效优于左氧氟沙星,但根据最小成本法和成本-效果分析表明,左氧氟沙星更具成本-效果优势。     

脑苷肌肽注射液治疗脑出血的循证药物经济学评价

目的评估脑苷肌肽注射液治疗脑出血的临床效果及经济性;方法计算机检索Pubmed/medline、Cochrane Library、中国期刊全文数据库、中文期刊全文数据库和万方数据知识服务平台,收集脑苷肌肽注射液治疗脑出血的随机对照试验,对纳入的文献进行质量评价,使用Rev Man 5.3软件对脑苷肌肽注射液临床疗效进行Meta分析,使用成本-效果分析方法对其进行经济性评价。结果共纳入4篇文献,共计431例患者。Meta分析结果显示,脑苷肌肽注射液联合常规治疗的有效率与单纯常规治疗之间差异有统计学意义[RR=1.15,95%CI(1.06,1.25),P<0.001],在常规治疗基础上使用脑苷肌肽注射液能提高脑出血患者的临床有效率。成本-效果分析显示,与单纯常规治疗相比,在常规治疗基础上使用脑苷肌肽注射液平均每人每天需要额外支付302.50元,14 d额外支付4228.70元,ICER为363.29元/%,即有效率增加一个百分比平均每人需要多花363.29元。结论常规治疗基础上使用脑苷肌肽注射液在效果增加的同时,成本也会增加,支付者需基于对相关指标的支付意愿进行决策。     

德谷胰岛素利拉鲁肽注射液治疗2型糖尿病患者的药物经济学研究系统评价

目的 系统评价德谷胰岛素利拉鲁肽注射液（IDegLira）治疗2型糖尿病（T2DM）患者的经济性,为中国相关研究、卫生决策提供参考。方法 计算机检索中国期刊全文数据库、万方数据知识服务平台、中文期刊全文数据库、PubMed、Web of Science和Embase数据库。根据纳入、排除标准筛选文献,对符合纳入标准的文献利用卫生经济学评价报告标准共识（CHEERS）量表进行质量评价,并对文献中报告的结果进行总结。结果 最终纳入20篇英文文献,美国、英国、瑞典、意大利、捷克、荷兰、斯洛伐克和西班牙的研究结果显示,IDegLira相比基础胰岛素、基础+餐时胰岛素方案、甘精胰岛素增加剂量或基础胰岛素联合胰高糖素样肽-1受体激动剂（GLP-1RA）均具有经济性。结论 基于国外人群的药物经济学研究结果表明,IDegLira治疗血糖控制不佳的T2DM患者显示出较好的经济性。     

医保续约后德谷门冬双胰岛素对比甘精胰岛素治疗口服降糖药控制不佳中国2型糖尿病患者的成本-效果

目的 评价医保续约后德谷门冬双胰岛素对比甘精胰岛素治疗口服降糖药控制不佳中国2型糖尿病患者的经济性。方法 采用医保续约调整后最新医药价格,运用IQVIACORE糖尿病模型,计算德谷门冬双胰岛素和甘精胰岛素治疗30年的健康产出和卫生成本,并进行增量成本-效果分析。研究基于卫生体系角度,成本包括降糖治疗、疾病管理及并发症治疗的直接医疗成本,健康产出指标为质量调整生命年（quality adjusted life years, QALYs）,贴现率使用5%。通过单因素敏感性分析、概率敏感性分析、情境分析验证评价结果的稳健性。结果 基于医保续约调整后的价格,德谷门冬双胰岛素组与甘精胰岛素组比较,治疗2型糖尿病的成本减少了20 595元,QALYs增加了0.133,敏感性分析显示基础分析结果稳健。结论 与甘精胰岛素相比,德谷门冬双胰岛素用于口服降糖药控制不佳2型糖尿病治疗中可以改善患者健康产出并节约成本,是经济性更优的治疗方案。     

艾司西酞普兰药物经济学研究综述

艾司西酞普兰(Escitaloprara)是一种相对较新的选择性5-羟色胺再摄取抑制剂。来自国外的药物经济学研究表明,艾司西酞普兰治疗抑郁症和广泛性焦虑具有明显的经济性。研究者通过对国外已有研究文献进行分析发现,与西酞普兰(citalopram)、氟西汀(Fluoxetine)、帕罗西汀(Paroxetine)、帕罗西汀CR(Paroxetine CR)、盐酸舍曲林(Sertraline)、盐酸度洛西汀(Duloxetine)、文拉法辛(Venlafaxine)和文拉法辛XR(Venlafaxine XR)相比,艾司西酞普兰的不良事件发生率和平均治愈一例患者的成本显著较低,而临床产出显著优于其他产品。同时,艾司西酞普兰在提高患者生存质量和预防复发方面也显著优于其他产品。已有药物经济学研究的数据显示,与其他竞争者相比,艾司西酞普兰更具有成本-效果和成本-效用优势。     

胰岛素泵短期持续皮下注射胰岛素类似物对初诊2型糖尿病的临床疗效分析

目的分析初诊2型糖尿病采用胰岛素泵短期持续皮下注射胰岛素类似物治疗的临床效果。方法选取我院84例初诊2型糖尿病患者,并随机将其分为治疗组(42例)和对照组(42例),对照组患者采用皮下注射胰岛素进行治疗,治疗组患者采用胰岛素泵短期持续皮下注射胰岛素类似物治疗,对比两组患者临床治疗效果。结果两组患者治疗前空腹血糖、糖化血红蛋白、早餐后血糖、晚餐后血糖及睡前血糖无显著差异性(P>0.05);治疗后,两组患者糖化血红蛋白较治疗前无显著变化(P>0.05);两组患者治疗后空腹血糖、早餐后血糖、晚餐后血糖及睡前血糖较治疗前存在显著差异性(P<0.05);组间对比,治疗组患者治疗后空腹血糖、糖化血红蛋白、早餐后血糖、晚餐后血糖及睡前血糖显著优于对照组患者(P<0.05);两组患者不良反应发生率有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论胰岛素泵短期持续皮下注射胰岛素类似物在治疗初诊2型糖尿病患者中效果显著。     

三种商品名称银杏叶提取物注射液治疗突发性耳聋患者的成本-效果分析

目的 探讨3种商品名称银杏叶提取物注射液治疗突发性耳聋患者的成本-效果.方法 选取2017年12月至2018年12月东莞市中医院收治的92例突发性耳聋患者作为研究对象,按照给药方案不同分为A组舒血宁注射液(商品名杏雪)组、B组银杏叶提取物注射液组、C组银杏叶提取物注射液(商品名金纳多)组,比较3组患者临床疗效、不良反应...     

都梁软胶囊治疗偏头痛的药物经济学评价

目的 基于文献数据,评价都梁软胶囊治疗偏头痛的成本-效果。方法 检索国内外权威数据库,收集都梁软胶囊治疗偏头痛的随机对照试验文献,纳入656例偏头痛患者,采用RevMan 5.3统计软件进行Meta分析。建立决策树模型,从医疗系统角度进行成本-效果分析。效果参数为临床总有效率,来源于临床文献Meta分析,成本参数为药品治疗成本,计算增量成本-效果比（ICER）并通过单因素敏感性分析检验基础分析结果的稳健性。结果 Meta分析结果显示,都梁软胶囊联合基础西医用药的临床总有效率优于基础西医用药。成本-效果分析显示,疗程为2周时,都梁软胶囊+基础西医用药较基础西医用药治疗偏头痛的临床总有效率每增加1%,成本增加7.01元;疗程为2周以上时,都梁软胶囊+基础西医用药较基础西医用药治疗偏头痛的临床总有效率每增加1%,成本增加11.09元。在假定患者的意愿支付阈值为2023年人均可支配收入39 218元的情况下,都梁软胶囊联合基础西医用药治疗比基础西医用药治疗更具经济性。结论 都梁软胶囊联合基础西医用药相比于基础西医用药治疗偏头痛更具有成本-效果优势。     

奥塞米韦治疗流感的药物经济学评价——基于丹麦青少年和成年人的研究

目的:评价奥塞米韦治疗丹麦青少年和成年流感病人的经济性。方法:分别从全社会和付费者的角度,采用成本-效果分析和成本-效用分析比较奥塞米韦与常规疗法(缓解症状的OTC药物)治疗流感的经济性。参与本研究的人群是其他方面健康的青少年和成年人,年龄在13～64岁之间。本研究使用了丹麦的数据来进行模拟,其结果也只适合丹麦人群。在经济学模型中,采用了一阶和二阶Monte Carlo模拟,并且采用敏感度分析来检验模型的稳健性。主要产出指标:成本-效果分析的意义是每恢复正常活动一天所花费的成本,成本-效用分析的意义是每获得一个QALY的成本。结果:从全社会角度分析,奥塞米韦相对于常规疗法存在绝对优势。从付费者角度分析,成本-效果比为每恢复正常活动一天需要12.3欧元,成本-效用比为5063欧元/QALY。在忽略住院、并发症以及死亡的情况下,进行敏感度分析,结果发现成本-效果比和成本-效用比有优势。假设人们的意愿支付值为26174欧元/QALY,奥塞米韦治疗流感仍然保持了经济性。结论:用奥塞米韦治疗其他方面健康的丹麦青少年和成年流感病人为社会节约了成本,并且从付费者角度来看,成本也相对较低,因此该方案具有经济性。     

Evaluation of the cost-utility of insulin degludec vs insulin glargine in Sweden

Abstract

Objective:

To evaluate the annual cost-utility of insulin degludec compared with glargine in patients with: type 1 diabetes (T1D), type 2 diabetes receiving basal-only therapy (T2D-BOT), and type 2 diabetes receiving basal-bolus therapy (T2B-BB) in Sweden.

Methods:

A cost-utility model was programmed in Microsoft Excel to evaluate clinical and economic outcomes. The clinical trials were designed as treat-to-target, with insulin doses adjusted in order to achieve similar glycemic control between treatments, thus long-term modeling is not meaningful. Basal and bolus insulin doses, incidence of hypoglycemic events, frequency of self-monitoring of blood glucose, and possibility for flexibility in timing of dose administration were specified for each insulin in three diabetes populations, based on data collected in Swedish patients with diabetes and a meta-analysis of clinical trials with degludec. Using these characteristics, the model estimated costs from a societal perspective and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) in the two scenarios.

Results:

Use of degludec was associated with a QALY gain compared with glargine in T1D (0.31 vs 0.26?QALYs), T2D-BOT (0.76 vs 0.69?QALYs), and T2D-BB (0.56 vs 0.47?QALYs), driven by reduced incidence of hypoglycemia and possibility for flexibility around timing of dose administration. Therapy regimens containing degludec were associated with increased costs compared to glargine-based regimens, driven by the increased pharmacy cost of basal insulin, but partially offset by other cost savings. Based on estimates of cost and clinical outcomes, degludec was associated with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of SEK 19,766 per QALY gained, SEK 10,082 per QALY gained, and SEK 36,074 per QALY gained in T1D, T2-BOT, and T2-BB, respectively.

Limitations:

The hypoglycemic event rates in the base case analysis were derived from a questionnaire-based study that relied on patient interpretation and recall of hypoglycemic symptoms. The relative rates of hypoglycemia with degludec compared to glargine were derived from a meta-analysis of phase III trials, which may not reflect the relative rates observed in real-world clinical practice. Both of these key limitations were explored in one-way sensitivity analyses.

Conclusions:

Based on reduced incidence of hypoglycemia and possibility for flexibility around timing of dose administration, use of degludec is likely to be cost-effective compared to glargine from a societal perspective in T1D, T2-BOT, and T2-BB in Sweden over a 1-year time horizon.     

Long-term cost-effectiveness of insulin detemir versus NPH insulin in type 2 diabetes in Sweden

Abstract

Aim:

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of insulin detemir vs. NPH insulin once daily, in patients with type 2 diabetes in the Swedish setting based on clinical data from a published randomized controlled trial.

Methods:

Projections of long-term outcomes were made using the IMS CORE Diabetes Model (CDM), based on clinical data from a 26-week randomized controlled trial that compared once daily insulin detemir and NPH insulin, when used to intensify insulin treatment in 271 patients with type 2 diabetes and body mass index (BMI) 25–40?kg/m². Trial results showed that insulin detemir was associated with a significantly lower incidence of hypoglycemic events and significantly less weight gain in comparison with NPH insulin. The analysis was conducted from a third party payer perspective and the base case analysis was performed over a time horizon of 40 years and future costs and clinical outcomes were discounted at a rate of 3% per year.

Results:

Insulin detemir was associated with higher mean (SD) quality-adjusted life expectancy (5.42 [0.10] vs. 5.31 [0.10] quality-adjusted life years [QALYs]) and lower overall costs (SEK 378,539 [10,372] vs. SEK 384,216 [11,230]; EUR 33,794 and EUR 34,300, respectively, where 1 EUR?=?11.2015 SEK) compared with NPH insulin. Sensitivity analysis showed that the principal driver of the benefits associated with insulin detemir was the lower rate of hypoglycemic events (major and minor events) vs. NPH insulin, suggesting that detemir might also be cost-saving over a shorter time horizon. Limitations of the analysis include the use of data from a trial outside Sweden in the Swedish setting.

Conclusions:

Based on clinical input data derived from a previously published randomized controlled trial, it is likely that in the Swedish setting insulin detemir would be cost-saving in comparison with NPH insulin for the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes.     

A cost comparison of long-acting insulin analogs vs NPH insulin-based treatment in patients with type 2 diabetes using routinely collected primary care data from the UK

Abstract

Aim:

The aim of this analysis was to investigate total healthcare costs, HbA1c, and weight changes over a 36-month period in patients with type 2 diabetes initiated on NPH or long-acting insulin analogs.

Methods:

Electronic patient data from 479 general practices in the UK (THIN database) were examined for new users of glargine (n?=?794), detemir (n?=?252), or NPH insulin (n?=?430). Annualized healthcare costs and clinical outcomes in years 1, 2, and 3 following insulin initiation were quantified and compared with baseline, using ANOVA and linear regression models.

Results:

A significant difference (p?<?0.05) in total healthcare costs increases at year 1 vs baseline was observed between glargine and detemir, detemir and NPH, but not between glargine and NPH (increase: +£486, +£635, and +£420 for glargine, detemir, and NPH users, respectively). However, increases by year 3 were not significantly different between the insulins. A propensity score analysis comparing analog and NPH insulin showed that, following insulin initiation, increases in costs were higher with insulin analogs at year one (+£220), but this difference decreased over time in each year following insulin initiation (+£168 and +£146, respectively, for years 2 and 3). HbA1c reductions were not significantly different between the groups at all time points. Differences in weight gain between glargine and NPH were statistically significant at year 1 (0.87?kg vs 1.11?kg) and year 3 (1.15?kg vs 1.57?kg), but other estimates of between-group differences in weight gain were non-significant.

Conclusions:

Following insulin initiation, the difference in healthcare costs of long-acting analogs compared to NPH insulin was transient. By year 3, the cost differences were not significantly different between the two cohorts, driven by an observed reduction in the cost of self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) in the analog group and an increase in the cost of bolus insulin in the NPH group.