ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE To evaluate the efficacy， safety and cost-effectiveness of polyisobutylene （PIB）-type Gutong plaster （called “PIB Gutong plaster” for short） versus non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs （NSAIDs） in the treatment of osteoarthritis in Chinese adults. METHODS Based on a real-world study， after propensity score matching， the decrease in pain visual simulation score， utility increase， time to pain resolution， time to return to normal range of motion and total adverse events of PIB Gutong plaster versus three NSAIDs （celecoxib， diclofenac sodium， and ibuprofen） were evaluated. Cost-utility analysis was used to calculate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio （ICER） of patients using PIB Gutong plaster versus the three NSAIDs from the perspective of the whole society， and sensitivity analysis was carried out. RESULTS In terms of effectiveness， the recovery time of joint activity in PIB Gutong plaster group was significantly longer than that in celecoxib group， the decrease in VAS score of PIB Gutong plaster was significantly higher than that of ibuprofen but significantly lower than that of diclofenac sodium； the time of pain disappearance was longer than that in diclofenac sodium group and ibuprofen group， and the increase in health utility was significantly lower than that in diclofenac sodium group （P＜0.05）. In terms of safety， there were no significant differences in the incidence and severity of adverse events of PIB Gutong plaster， compared with the three NSAIDs， without statistical significance （P＜0.05）. In terms of cost-effectiveness， compared with celecoxib and diclofenac sodium， PIB Gutong plaster was dominant. Compared with ibuprofen， the ICER value of PIB Gutong plaster was 178 611.58 yuan/QALY， indicating that at the current price， PIB Gutong plaster was cost-effective if the threshold was 3 times GDP per capita. The results of sensitivity analysis were consistent with those of basic analysis. CONCLUSIONS The efficacy of PIB Gutong plaster was better than that of ibuprofen， similar to that of celecoxib， but worse than that of diclofenac sodium， the safety was consistent with the three NSAIDs， and the cost-effectiveness of PIB Gutong plaster needs to be improved.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE：To review the method and results of pharmacoeconomic evaluation of aspirin for cardiovascular disease prevention ，and to provide reference for economic evaluation of aspirin and clinical medication decision. METHODS ： Using“cardiovascular disease ”“cost-effectiveness”“cost-utility”“cost-benefit”“cost effectiveness ”“cost utility ”as the Chinese search terms ，using“cost-effectiveness”“cost-utility”“cost-benefit”“economic analysis ”“pharmacoeconomics”as English search terms，relevant literatures about pharmacoeconomic evaluation of aspirin for cardiovascular disease prevention published during January 1，2000 to January 17，2021 were retrieved from CNKI ，Wanfang database ，VIP，PubMed，Web of Science ，the Cochrane Library. After screening literatures according to inclusion and exclusion criteria ，extracting relevant data ，the quality of included literatures was evaluated with CHEERS scale. The method and results of pharmacoeconomic evaluation of aspirin in the prevention of cardiovascular diseases were analyzed statistically in terms of basic information ，literature quality ，model structure and elements ，health status and utility value ，cost items and sources ，health output ，economic evaluation and sensitivity analysis. RESULTS & CONCLUSIONS ：Nine literatures were included ，and the total coincidence rates of the literatures were all above 80.00％. The pharmacoeconomic evaluation of aspirin in the prevention of cardiovascular disease mainly adopted Markov model ， and the model structure was relatively mature. The cost mainly considered the direct cost ，and the data mainly came from the medical insurance database ；utility was calculated according to the utility value of health state ，which mostly came from the existing literatures. The sensitivity analysis adopted deterministic sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis ，and the main influential factor was cost. It was economical to use aspirin for cardiovascular disease prevention in most cases ，and aspirin was more economical for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease. It is suggested that domestic scholars can refer to China ’s pharmacoeconomic guidelines to carry out relvant pharmacoeconomic evaluation research more standardized.