METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed in Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, and PubMed databases up to February 2020 for RCTs that investigated the effect of DHEA supplementation on testosterone levels. The estimated effect of the data was calculated using the weighted mean difference (WMD). Subgroup analysis was performed to identify the source of heterogeneity among studies.
RESULTS: Overall results from 42 publications (comprising 55 arms) demonstrated that testosterone level was significantly increased after DHEA administration (WMD: 28.02 ng/dl, 95% CI: 21.44-34.60, p = 0.00). Subgroup analyses revealed that DHEA increased testosterone level in all subgroups, but the magnitude of increment was higher in females compared to men (WMD: 30.98 ng/dl vs. 21.36 ng/dl); DHEA dosage of ˃50 mg/d compared to ≤50 mg/d (WMD: 57.96 ng/dl vs. 19.43 ng/dl); intervention duration of ≤12 weeks compared to ˃12 weeks (WMD: 44.64 ng/dl vs. 19 ng/dl); healthy participants compared to postmenopausal women, pregnant women, non-healthy participants and androgen-deficient patients (WMD: 52.17 ng/dl vs. 25.04 ng/dl, 16.44 ng/dl and 16.47 ng/dl); and participants below 60 years old compared to above 60 years old (WMD: 31.42 ng/dl vs. 23.93 ng/dl).
CONCLUSION: DHEA supplementation is effective for increasing testosterone levels, although the magnitude varies among different subgroups. More study needed on pregnant women and miscarriage.
Methods: A decision-analytic model, based on clinical phase III trials, was developed to simulate patient transitions. Direct costs were estimated from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were calculated over a 5-year lifetime horizon. Model robustness was conducted in sensitivity analyses.
Results: For the base case, EGFR mutation testing followed by afatinib treatment for advanced NSCLC increased 0.15 QALYs compared with standard chemotherapy at an additional cost of $5069.12. The ICER for afatinib maintenance was $33,416.39 per QALY gained. The utility of PFS and the cost of afatinib had the most important impact on the ICER. Scenario analyses suggested that when a patient assistance program (PAP) was available, ICER decreased to $22,972.52/QALY lower than the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of China ($26,508/QALY).
Conclusion: Our results suggest that gene-guided maintenance therapy with afatinib with the PAP might be a cost-effective treatment option compared with gemcitabine - cisplatin in China.
Methods: We used a Markov microsimulation model to compare the cost-effectiveness of zoledronic acid with alendronate in Chinese postmenopausal osteoporotic women with no fracture history at various ages of therapy initiation from health care payer perspective.
Results: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for the zoledronic acid versus alendronate were $23,581/QALY at age 65 years, $17,367/QALY at age 70 years, $14,714/QALY at age 75 years, and $12,169/QALY at age 80 years, respectively. In deterministic sensitivity analyses, the study demonstrated that the two most impactful parameters were the annual cost of zoledronic acid and the relative risk of hip fracture with zoledronic acid. In probabilistic sensitivity analyses, the probabilities of zoledronic acid being cost-effective compared with alendronate were 70-100% at a willingness-to-pay of $29,340 per QALY.
Conclusions: Among postmenopausal osteoporotic women in China, zoledronic acid therapy is cost-effective at all ages examined from health care payer perspective, compared with weekly oral alendronate. In addition, alendronate treatment is shown to be dominant for patients at ages 65 and 70 with full persistence. This study will help clinicians and policymakers make better decisions about the relative economic value of osteoporosis treatments in China.