Induction chemotherapy regimes in first-line treatment for locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma: A network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to evaluate the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of various induction chemotherapy (IC) regimens as first-line treatment for Locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma (LA-NPC), aiming to provide clinicians and patients with informed insights to aid in treatment decision-making. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a network meta-analysis (NMA) and cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) based on data from 10 clinical trials investigating IC regimens for the treatment of LA-NPC. A Bayesian NMA was performed, with the primary outcomes being hazard ratios (HRs) for disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS). To model the disease progression of LA-NPC, we developed a dynamic partitioned survival model consisting of three disease states: progression-free survival (PFS), progression disease (PD), and death. The model was run on a 3-week cycle for a research period of 10 years, with quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) serving as outcome measures. RESULTS: According to the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) estimates derived from the NMA, TPC and TP, as IC regimens, appear to exhibit superior efficacy compared to other treatment modalities. In terms of CEA, concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT), TPF + CCRT, and GP + CCRT were found to be dominated (more costs and less QALYs). Comparatively, TPC + CCRT emerged as a cost-effective option with an ICER of $1260.57/QALY when compared to PF + CCRT. However, TP + CCRT demonstrated even greater cost-effectiveness than TPC + CCRT, with an associated increase in costs of $3300.83 and an increment of 0.1578 QALYs per patient compared to TPC + CCRT, resulting in an ICER of $20917.62/QALY. CONCLUSION: Based on considerations of efficacy and cost-effectiveness, the TP + CCRT treatment regimen may emerge as the most favorable first-line therapeutic approach for patients with LA-NPC.

A systematic review of cost-effectiveness analysis of different screening strategies for familial hypercholesterolemia.

AIMS: Diagnosis rate of familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) remained less than 10 % globally and the economic evaluation results of different FH screening strategies varied. This study aimed to systematically review the methodology and results of cost effectiveness analysis (CEA) of FH screening, which will provide evidence support for health-related decision-making. METHODS: The Medline/PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of science, National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database (NHSEED) and CEA Registry databases were electronically searched to collect full economic evaluation from the establishment of the databases to June 30, 2022. The quality of included studies was evaluated by the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards statement 2022 (CHEERS 2022) checklist. RESULTS: Among 232 retrieved studies, 18 economic evaluations were included and all of them are from developed countries, with an average quality score of 0.73. The decision tree model and/or Markov model were constructed by thirteen articles (72 %). Twelve studies (67 %) adopted the healthcare perspective and the lifetime horizon to compare the costs and health outcome of different screening strategies. The results of eight studies indicated that cascade screening was a cost-effective strategy compared with no screening, which was more pronounced in younger adults. Universal screening in young adults aged 16 years or 18-40 years (n=3) and in children aged 1-2 years combined with reverse cascade screening (n=3) are both cost-effective. The probability of being cost-effective for cascade screening (n=6) and universal screening (n=1) of young aged 18-40 years were greater than 95 %. CONCLUSIONS: Our review demonstrated the economic advantages of cascade screening, universal screening of young adults, and universal screening of newborns combined with reverse cascade screening. Further health economic evaluation is needed in children and in low- and middle-income countries.

Cost-effectiveness of abemaciclib plus endocrine therapy in high-risk HR+/HER2-early breast cancer in China.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this article is to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of abemaciclib plus endocrine therapy (ABE + ET) vs. ET as adjuvant treatment for high-risk hormone receptor-positive and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HR+/HER2-) early breast cancer in China. METHODS: From the perspective of the Chinese health care system, a 5-state Markov model was developed with a lifetime horizon. Data of the monarchE phase III clinical trial were used to model the invasive disease-free survival (iDFS) and standard parameters models were used for data extrapolation. Costs were obtained from national data sources, expert opinions and published literature using 2023 US dollars and discounted by 5%. The results were evaluated in terms of life-years (LYs) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Sensitivity analyses and scenario analyses were performed to test the robustness of the basic results. RESULTS: In the base-case analysis result, the model projected improved outcomes (by 0.65 LYs and 0.72 QALYs) and increased costs (by $16,057.72) for incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of $24,841/LY and $22,385/QALY for ABE + ET vs. ET patients. The results in scenario analysis estimated the ICERs of ABE + ET treatment to be $16,959/LY and $15,264/QALY in a mixture cure model, and $13,560/LY and $12,191/QALY in a non-mixture cure model. The model was sensitive to outcome discount rate and utility of iDFS. CONCLUSION: ABE + ET might not have an economic advantage over ET at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of one time the per capita GDP in China, but was expected to be more cost-effective at a WTP threshold of three times the per capita GDP. Further analysis will be conducted once data from longer-term studies become available.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of health utility values among patients with ischemic stroke.

Purpose: Ischemic stroke (IS) has a considerable impact on the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of patients. A systematic review was conducted to summarize and synthesize the HRQoL reported from IS patients. Methods: An electronic search was performed in PubMed, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases from inception to February 2022 for studies measuring utility values in IS patients. Basic information about the studies, patient characteristics, measurement of the utility values, and utility values were extracted and summarized. Utility values were pooled according to the time of evaluation, and disease severity was classified with modified Rankin Scale (mRS) scores. The quality of the studies was assessed according to key criteria recommended by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Results: A total of 39 studies comprising 30,853 participants were included in the study. Measured with EQ-5D-3L, the pooled utility values were 0.42 [95% confidential interval (CI): 0.13 to 0.71], 0.55 (95% CI: 0.43 to 0.68), 0.65 (95% CI: 0.52 to 0.78), 0.60 (95% CI: 0.43 to 0.78), and 0.67 (95% CI: 0.60 to 0.74) for patients diagnosed with IS within 1, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months or above among poststroke patients. Four studies reported utility values classified by mRS scores where synthesized estimates stratified by mRS scores ranged from 0.91 (95% CI: 0.85 to 0.97) for patients with an mRS score of 1 to-0.04 (95% CI:-0.18 to 0.11) for those with an mRS score of 5. As for the health dimension profiles, usual activity was the most impacted dimension, while self-care was the least impacted one. Conclusion: This study indicated that the utility values in IS patients kept increasing from stroke onset and became relatively stabilized at 6 months poststroke. Health utility values decreased significantly as mRS scores increased. These results facilitate economic evaluations in utility retrieval and selection. Further exploration was required regarding the factors that affect the HRQoL of IS patients.

Medication adherence with fixed-dose versus free-equivalent combination therapies: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Objective: We conducted a large-scale meta-analysis and subgroup analysis to compare the effect of fixed-dose combination (FDC) therapy with that of free-equivalent combination (FEC) therapy on medication adherence. Methods: Studies published in Web of Science, PubMed, Cochrane Library, ScienceDirect, and Embase up to May 2022 were identified according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The primary assessed outcomes were the medication possession ratio (MPR) and proportion of days covered (PDC). We investigated the probability of being adherent to the prescribed treatment (MPR or PDC ≥80%) or the average estimate of these two parameters. Studies reporting such results were included in this meta-analysis. The summary measures were reported as the risk ratio (RR) and the weighted mean difference (MD) with 95% of confidence interval (CI) using the random-effects model of DerSimonian and Laird. The quality of the cohort studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Results: Of the 1,814 screened studies, 61 met the predefined inclusion criteria. The meta-analysis of the results showed that compared to FEC, FDC significantly improved the medication compliance of patients by 1.29 times (95% CI:1.23-1.35, p < 0.00001). I2 of 99% represent high heterogeneity across studies. The mean difference in medication adherence between FDC and FEC was 0.10 (95% CI: 0.06-0.14, p < 0.00001) with an I2 estimate of 100%. Subgroup analyses were performed for studies that reported adherence outcomes according to disease type, period of evaluation and compliance indicators. A sensitivity analysis was conducted to exclude the results of low-quality studies, as well as studies in which there was ambiguity in the method of calculating the estimator. Conclusion: Analysis of the assessed parameters for the intention-to-treat and subgroup populations suggests that FDC can improve adherence to treatment and its advantages over FEC may increase over time. Further research is needed to better understand how medical conditions affect the impact of reduced pill burden on adherence, particularly in diseases other than cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes mellitus.