AIM OF THE STUDY: This study aimed to systematically review all available evidence which purports to support these claims.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: The systematic review accorded with the Cochrane Collaboration framework and PRISMA reporting. Databases including MEDLINE, Excerpta Medica Database (EMBASE), Cochrane library database, and Google Scholar were searched by keywords, Yahom and Ya-hom. Pharmacological and toxicity data from non-animal and animal studies were included.
RESULTS: Twenty-four articles: 2 on in vitro cell lines or bacteria, 3 in vitro cell-free, 5 in vitro animal, 13 in vivo and 1 human mainly reported (A) Cardiovascular effects (i) transient hypotension (0.2-0.8g/kg, intravenous injection (i.v.)), increased cerebral blood flow (2g/kg, single oral) and vascular dilatation/relaxation (ii) elevated blood pressure (BP) (0.2-0.8g/kg, i.v. or 2-4g/kg oral) and vasocontraction. Single Yahom doses (3g) given to healthy volunteers had no effect on cutaneous blood flow, ECG or systolic BP although marginally increased diastolic BP was claimed. (B) Yahom (2-4g/kg) completely inhibited gastric acid secretion evoked by gastric secretagogues. (C) Toxicity: Chronic oral doses of selected Yahoms to rodents (0.001-1g/kg) supports its status as generally regarded as safe.
CONCLUSIONS: Most studies supported declared objectives relating to perceived Yahom actions, but lacked background demonstrating clinical efficacy, and mechanistic data that would validate conclusions. Our study suggests that research into traditional medicinal herbs needs underpinning by appropriate clinical interventions and pharmacovigilance, thereby optimising efficacy and minimizing toxicity by combining traditional wisdom and modern testing.
METHODS: We searched Medline, Embase, NHS EED, EconLit, CEA Registry, SciELO, LILACS, CABI-Global Health Database, Popline, World Bank - e-Library, and WHOLIS. Full economic evaluations studies, published from inception to November 2015, evaluating Rotavirus vaccines preventing Rotavirus infections were included. The methods, assumptions, results and conclusions of the included studies were extracted and appraised using WHO guide for standardization of EE of immunization programs.
RESULTS: 104 relevant studies were included. The majority of studies were conducted in high-income countries. Cost-utility analysis was mostly reported in many studies using incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per DALY averted or QALY gained. Incremental cost per QALY gained was used in many studies from high-income countries. Mass routine vaccination against rotavirus provided the ICERs ranging from cost-saving to highly cost-effective in comparison to no vaccination among low-income countries. Among middle-income countries, vaccination offered the ICERs ranging from cost-saving to cost-effective. Due to low- or no subsidized price of rotavirus vaccines from external funders, being not cost-effective was reported in some high-income settings.
CONCLUSION: Mass vaccination against rotavirus was generally found to be cost-effective, particularly in low- and middle-income settings according to the external subsidization of vaccine price. On the other hand, it may not be a cost-effective intervention at market price in some high-income settings. This systematic review provides supporting information to health policy-makers and health professionals when considering rotavirus vaccination as a national program.
METHODS: A cost-utility analysis using a lifetime Markov model was conducted among Thai patients with NAFLD, from a societal perspective. Pioglitazone, vitamin E, a weight reduction program, and usual care were investigated, with the outcomes of interest being the number of cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) cases, life expectancy, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), lifetime costs, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.
RESULTS: When compared with usual care, a weight reduction program can prevent cirrhosis and HCC cases by 13.91% (95% credible interval [CrI] 0.97, 20.59) and 2.12% (95% CrI 0.43, 4.56), respectively; pioglitazone can prevent cirrhosis and HCC cases by 9.30% (95% CrI -2.52, 15.24) and 1.42% (95% CrI -0.18, 3.74), respectively; and vitamin E can prevent cirrhosis and HCC cases by 7.32% (95% CrI -4.64, 15.56) and 1.12% (95% CrI -0.81, 3.44), respectively. Estimated incremental life expectancy and incremental QALYs for all treatment options compared with usual care were approximately 0.06 years and 0.07 QALYs, respectively. The lifetime costs of both a weight reduction program and pioglitazone were less than usual care, while vitamin E was $3050 (95% CrI 2354, 3650). The weight reduction program dominated all other treatment options. The probability of being cost-effective in Thailand's willingness-to-pay threshold ($4546/QALY gained) was 76% for the weight reduction program, 22% for pioglitazone, 2% for usual care, and 0% for vitamin E.
CONCLUSIONS: A weight reduction program can prevent cirrhosis and HCC occurrences, and dominates all other treatment options. Pioglitazone and vitamin E demonstrated a trend towards decreasing the number of cirrhosis and HCC cases.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A Markov model was used to evaluate the economic and treatment outcomes of warfarin care bundles and NOACs compared with usual warfarin care. Cost-effectiveness was assessed from a societal perspective over a lifetime horizon with 3% discount rate in a hypothetical cohort of 65-year-old atrial fibrillation patients. Input parameters were derived from published literature, meta-analysis and local data when available. The outcome measure was incremental cost per quality-adjusted life years (QALY) gained (ICER).
RESULTS: Using USD5104 as the threshold of willingness-to-pay per QALY, patient's self-management of warfarin was cost-effective when compared to usual warfarin care, with an ICER of USD1395/QALY from societal perspective. All NOACs were not cost-effective in Thailand, with ICER ranging from USD8678 to USD14,247/QALY. When compared to the next most effective intervention, patient's self-testing and genotype-guided warfarin dosing were dominated. In the cost-effectiveness acceptability curve, patient's self-management had the highest probability of being cost-effective in Thailand, approximately 78%. Results were robust over a range of inputs in sensitivity analyses.
CONCLUSIONS: In Thailand, NOACs were unlikely to be cost-effective at current prices. Conversely, patient's self-management is a highly cost-effective intervention and may be considered for adoption in developing regions with resource-limited healthcare systems.
METHODS: We performed a comprehensive systematic search using PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, and Econlit from inception to July 2022. Articles were included if they described innovation or the characteristics of innovation of the technologies in healthcare. Characteristics or definitions of innovation directly or indirectly described as innovation were extracted from the included articles. Two independent reviewers then conceptualized the identified characteristics of innovation to generate innovation attributes in healthcare.
RESULTS: In total, 103 articles were included in this review. Eight attributes describing innovation, i.e. novelty, step change, substantial benefits, an improvement over existing technologies, convenience and/or adherence, added value, acceptable cost, and uncounted benefits, were conceptualized. Most of the identified innovation attributes were based on the researchers' perspective.
CONCLUSIONS: This study conceptualized innovation attributes in healthcare based on the characteristics of healthcare innovation as defined in the literature. Further research is warranted to obtain a complete understanding of the perspectives of researchers and other stakeholders, including patients, healthcare providers, healthcare payers, and the pharmaceutical industry, on recognizing innovation in healthcare.KEY POINTSThis is the first systematic review to conceptualize attributes of healthcare innovation.We conceptualized eight attributes describing innovation, i.e. novelty, step change, substantial benefits, an improvement over existing technologies, convenience and/or adherence, added value, acceptable cost, and uncounted benefits based on the similar concept.In existing literature, patients' and caregivers' perspectives were less frequently found to describe the innovation attributes.Future research is needed to identify, measure, and value various stakeholders, including patients' and caregivers' perspectives on healthcare innovation.
Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane register of trials systematically for studies that examined treatment options for patients with MDR- and XDR-AB infections until April 2016. Network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed to estimate the risk ratio (RR) and 95% CI from both direct and indirect evidence. Primary outcomes were clinical cure and microbiological cure. Secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality and nephrotoxic and non-nephrotoxic adverse events.
Results: A total of 29 studies with 2529 patients (median age 60 years; 65% male; median APACHE II score 19.0) were included. Although there were no statistically significant differences between treatment options, triple therapy with colistin, sulbactam and tigecycline had the highest clinical cure rate. Colistin in combination with sulbactam was associated with a significantly higher microbiological cure rate compared with colistin in combination with tigecycline (RR 1.23; 95% CI 1.03-1.47) and colistin monotherapy (RR 1.21; 95% CI 1.06-1.38). No significant differences in all-cause mortality were noted between treatment options. Tigecycline-based therapy also appeared less effective for achieving a microbiological cure and is not appropriate for treating bloodstream MDR- and XDR-AB infections.
Conclusions: Combination therapy of colistin with sulbactam demonstrates superiority in terms of microbiological cure with a safety profile similar to that of colistin monotherapy. Thus, our findings support the use of this combination as a treatment for MDR- and XDR-AB infections.
METHODS: Long-term costs and outcomes were projected using a validated IMS CORE Diabetes Model, version 8.5. Cohort characteristics, baseline risk factors, and costs of diabetes complications were derived from Thai data sources. Relative risk was derived from a systematic review and meta-analysis study. Costs and outcomes were discounted at 3% per annum. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was presented in 2015 US Dollars (USD). A series of one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.
RESULTS: IDet yielded slightly greater quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) (8.921 vs 8.908), but incurred higher costs than IGlar (90,417.63 USD vs 66,674.03 USD), resulting in an ICER of ∼1.7 million USD per QALY. The findings were very sensitive to the cost of IDet. With a 34% reduction in the IDet cost, treatment with IDet would become cost-effective according to the Thai threshold of 4,434.59 USD per QALY.
CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with IDet in patients with T2DM who had uncontrolled blood glucose with oral anti-diabetic agents was not a cost-effective strategy compared with IGlar treatment in the Thai context. These findings could be generalized to other countries with a similar socioeconomics level and healthcare systems.
METHODS: We performed systematic searches using electronic databases including PubMed and EMBASE until December 2012. Key words included "metformin" AND ("ovarian cancer" OR "ovary tumor"). All human studies assessing the effects of metformin on ovarian cancer were eligible for inclusion. All articles were reviewed independently by 2 authors with a standardized approach for the purpose of study, study design, patient characteristics, exposure, and outcomes. The data were pooled using a random-effects model.
RESULTS: Of 190 studies retrieved, only 3 observational studies and 1 report of 2 randomized controlled trials were included. Among those studies, 2 reported the effects of metformin on survival outcomes of ovarian cancer, whereas the other 2 reported the effects of metformin on ovarian cancer prevention. The findings of studies reporting the effects on survival outcomes indicated that metformin may prolong overall, disease-specific, and progression-free survival in ovarian cancer patients. The results of studies reporting the effects of metformin on ovarian cancer prevention were meta-analyzed. It indicated that metformin tended to decrease occurrence of ovarian cancer among diabetic patients with the pooled odds ratio of 0.57 (95% confidence interval, 0.16-1.99).
CONCLUSIONS: Our findings showed the potential therapeutic effects of metformin on survival outcomes of ovarian cancer and ovarian cancer prevention. However, most of the evidence was observational studies. There is a call for further well-conducted controlled clinical trials to confirm the effects of metformin on ovarian cancer survival and ovarian cancer prevention.