METHODS: A data set of Thai AD patients, representing unique demographic and clinical characteristics, was bootstrapped to generate a baseline cohort of 50 000 patients. Each patient was cloned and assigned to donepezil, galantamine, rivastigmine, memantine, or no treatment. Correlated changes in cognitive and behavioral status over time were developed using patient-level data. Treatment effects were obtained from the most recent network meta-analysis. Treatment persistence; mortality; and predictive equations for functional status, costs (Thai baht in 2017), and quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) were derived from country-specific real-world data.
RESULTS: From a societal perspective, only the prescription of donepezil to AD patients with all disease-severity levels was found to be cost-effective (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio): 138 524 Thai baht/QALY ($4062/QALY)]. Regardless of whether the treatment-stopping rule when the mini-mental state examination score <10 was introduced, providing early treatment with donepezil to mild AD patients further reduced the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Extensive sensitivity analyses indicated robust simulation findings.
CONCLUSIONS: Discrete-event simulation greatly enhances the real-world representativeness of decision-analytic models for AD. Donepezil is the most cost-effective treatment option for AD in Thailand and is worth being considered for universal financial coverage. Application of DES in heath technology assessment should be encouraged, especially when the validity of the model is questionable with classical modeling methods.
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.
DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis.
SETTING: Primary care setting.
PARTICIPANTS: Of 1568 studies screened, 14 studies with 7035 PWID were included.
MEASURES: PubMed, Embase, Web of Sciences, CENTRAL and Cochrane review databases were searched without language restriction from their inception to 27 January 2016. All published study designs with control groups that reported the effectiveness of pharmacy-based NSP on outcomes of interest were included. Outcomes of interest are risk behaviour (RB), HIV/hepatitis C virus (HCV) prevalence and economic outcomes. The estimates of pooled effects of these outcomes were calculated as pooled odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) using a random-effects model. Heterogeneity was assessed by I2 and χ2 tests.
FINDINGS: Most studies (nine of 14, 64.3%) were rated as having a serious risk of bias, while 28.6 and 7.1% were rated as having a moderate risk and low risk of bias, respectively. For sharing-syringe behaviour, pharmacy-based NSPs were significantly better than no NSPs for both main (OR = 0.50, 95% CI = 0.34-0.73; I2 = 59.6%) and sensitivity analyses, excluding studies with a serious risk of bias (OR = 0.52, 95% CI = 0.32-0.84; I2 = 41.4%). For safe syringe disposal and HIV/HCV prevalence, the evidence for pharmacy-based NSPs compared with other NSP or no NSP was unclear, as few of the studies reported this and most of them had a serious risk of bias. Compared with the total life-time cost of US$55 640 for treating a person with HIV infection, the HIV prevalence among PWID has to be at least 0.8% (for pharmacy-based NSPs) or 2.1% (for other NSPs) to result in cost-savings.
CONCLUSIONS: Pharmacy-based needle/syringe exchange programmes appear to be effective for reducing risk behaviours among people who inject drugs, although their effect on HIV/HCV prevalence and economic outcomes is unclear.
METHOD: We will search PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry, CINAHL Database, and the Cochrane Library using a predefined search strategy. Other sources of literature will include proceedings from the European Society of Cardiology, the American College of Cardiology, the American Heart Association, the EUROPCR, and the ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Database. We will include data from observational studies (case-control and cohort study design) and randomized control trials (that have investigated the relationship of D2B time and clinical outcome(s) in an adult (older than 18) STEMI population). Mortality (cardiac related and all-cause) and incidence heart failure (HF) have been prioritized as the primary outcomes. All eligible studies will be assessed for risk of bias using the Risk Of Bias in Non-randomized Studies - of Interventions tool. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework will be used to report the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. We will proceed to analyze the data quantitatively if the pre-specified conditions are satisfied.
DISCUSSION: Recent discussion on the negative findings of improved D2B delay over time being unrelated to better STEMI outcomes at the population level has reminded us of an important knowledge gap we have on this domain. This systematic review will serve to address some of these key questions not previously examined. Answers to these questions could clarify the controversies and offer empirical support for or against the suggested hypotheses.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42015026069.