METHODS: We performed a MEDLINE search via OVID with the Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms "Colorectal Neoplasms"[Mesh] and "Malaysia"[Mesh], and PubMed with the key words "colorectal cancer" and "Malaysia" from 1990 to 2015 for studies reporting any clinical, societal, and economical findings associated with colorectal cancer in Malaysia. Incidence and mortality data were retrieved from population-based cancer registries/databases.
RESULTS: In Malaysia, colorectal cancer is the second most common cancer in males and the third most common cancer in females. The economic burden of colorectal cancer is substantial and is likely to increase over time in Malaysia owing to the current trend in colorectal cancer incidence. In Malaysia, most patients with colorectal cancer have been diagnosed at a late stage, with the 5-year relative survival by stage being lower than that in developed Asian countries. Public awareness of the rising incidence of colorectal cancer and the participation rates for colorectal cancer screening are low.
CONCLUSION: The efficiency of different screening approaches must be assessed, and an organized national screening program should be developed in a phased manner. It is essential to maintain a balanced investment in awareness programs targeting general population and primary care providers, focused on increasing the knowledge on symptoms and risk factors of colorectal cancer, awareness on benefits of screening, and promotion of healthy life styles to prevent this important disease.
CONCLUSION: An 8-week duration of treatment with LDV/SOF is highly effective in properly selected patients; greater use of this regimen is recommended. (Hepatology 2017;65:1094-1103).
DATA SOURCES: We conducted a systematic review of PubMed, EMBASE, Tufts CEA registry, Cochrane CENTRAL, and the UK National Health Services Economic Evaluation Database from 2009 to 2014.
STUDY SELECTION: All cost-effectiveness studies evaluating asthma medication(s) were included. Clinical evidence type, "E," was classified as efficacy-based if the evidence was from an explanatory randomized controlled trial(s) or meta-analysis, while evidence from pragmatic trial(s) or observational study(s) was classified as effectiveness-based. We defined three times the World Health Organization cost-effectiveness willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold or less as a favorable cost-effectiveness finding. Logistic regression tested the likelihood of favorable versus unfavorable cost-effectiveness findings against the type of "E."
RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: 25 cost-effectiveness studies were included. Ten (40.0%) studies were effectiveness-based, yet 15 (60.0%) studies were efficacy-based. Of 17 studies using endpoints that could be compared to WTP threshold, 7 out of 8 (87.5%) effectiveness-based studies yielded favorable cost-effectiveness results, whereas 4 out of 9 (44.4%) efficacy-based studies yielded favorable cost-effectiveness results. The adjusted odds ratio was 15.12 (95% confidence interval; 0.59 to 388.75) for effectiveness-based versus efficacy-based achieving favorable cost-effectiveness findings. More asthma cost-effectiveness studies used efficacy-based evidence. Studies using effectiveness-based evidence trended toward being more likely to disseminate favorable cost-effective findings than those using efficacy. Health policy decision makers should pay attention to the type of clinical evidence used in cost-effectiveness studies for accurate interpretation and application.
METHODS: A Markov model cohort simulation with a 6-month cycle length to predict acute coronary syndrome, stroke, and heart failure throughout lifetime was performed. A cohort of 399 patients was obtained from two prospective, cluster randomized controlled clinical trials implementing physician-pharmacist collaborative interventions in community-based medical offices in the Midwest, USA. Framingham risk equations and other algorithms were used to predict the vascular diseases. SBP reduction due to the interventions deteriorated until 5 years. Direct medical costs using a payer perspective were adjusted to 2015 dollar value, and the main outcome was quality-adjusted life years (QALYs); both were discounted at 3%. The intervention costs were estimated from the trials, whereas the remaining parameters were from published studies. A series of sensitivity analyses including changing patient risks of vascular diseases, probabilistic sensitivity analysis, and a cost-effectiveness acceptability curve were performed.
RESULTS: The lifetime incremental costs were $26 807.83 per QALY (QALYs gained = 0.14). The intervention provided the greatest benefit for the high-risk patients, moderate benefit for the trial patients, and the lowest benefit for the low-risk patients. If a payer is willing to pay $50 000 per QALY gained, in 48.6% of the time the intervention would be cost-effective.
CONCLUSION: Team-based care such as a physician-pharmacist collaboration appears to be a cost-effective strategy for treating hypertension. The intervention is most cost-effective for high-risk patients.