Systematic evaluation of pharmacoeconomic studies on acute ischemic stroke population in China / 中国药房

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE To systematically evaluate pharmacoeconomic studies （modeling approach） based on the Chinese acute ischemic stroke （AIS） population， and to provide the suggestions for improving the pharmacoeconomic evaluation method of AIS. METHODS Retrieved from CNKI， Wanfang Data Knowledge Service Platform， VIP， PubMed， Embase， the Cochrane Library， ScienceDirect， and Web of Science databases， relevant literature on pharmacoeconomic evaluation of AIS were collected from January 2014 to February 2022. Basic information of included study， basic information and outcome indicators of the model were analyzed statistically. The quality of the included literature was evaluated using CHEERS 2022， and problems in the existing literature were identified and suggestions were made. RESULTS Twelve papers were finally included， involving five in Chinese and seven in English. All studies reported the study perspective， mainly from the perspective of health system； the age of the target population was mainly distributed around 60 years old； the main interventions in the included studies were pharmacotherapy， including single-drug regimens and combination drug regimens； nine papers used decision trees combined with Markov models， and three papers used Markov models alone， but the classification of health status was inconsistent； all papers reported study time frame and cycle period， with most studies choosing a study time frame of 30 years and a cycle period of 1 year； all studies used modified Rankin scale scores as an indicator of clinical effectiveness， which were mainly derived from clinical trials； utility values in most literature were derived from published studies， and costs were mainly direct medical costs； all studies performed cost-utility analyses using quality-adjusted life years and/or incremental cost-effectiveness ratios as outcome indicators， and single-factor sensitivity analyses and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed， but no contextual analyses were conducted for the different model structures that may exist. CONCLUSIONS The overall report of the included studies is relatively complete， but the methodology is relatively uniform， and there are still deficiencies in terms of study perspective， study time frame， parameter sources， and contextual analysis. Future AIS pharmacoeconomic evaluations should further improve the report content in accordance with the CHEERS list entries， conduct contextual analysis of multiple health state classification approaches from a society-wide perspective， while using data from real- world sources and standardizing the uncertainty analysis process of the study results to increase the authenticity and reliability of the study results.