METHODS: We conducted a cost-utility analysis using a Markov model to simulate lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of Thai smokers aged ≥35 years receiving smoking cessation services offered from FAHSAI Clinic or usual care over a horizon of 50 years. The model used a 6-month continuous abstinence rate from a multicenter prospective study of 24 FAHSAI Clinics. A series of sensitivity analyses including probabilistic sensitivity analysis were conducted to assess robustness of study findings. Cost data are presented in US$ for 2020.
RESULTS: The FAHSAI Clinic was dominant as it was less costly ($9537.92 vs $10964.19) and more effective (6.06 vs 5.96 QALYs) compared with usual care over the 50-year time horizon. Changes in risks of stroke and coronary heart disease among males had the largest impact on the cost-effectiveness findings. The probability that FAHSAI Clinic was cost-effective was 99.8% at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $5120.
CONCLUSIONS: The FAHSAI Clinic smoking cessation program was clinically superior and cost-saving compared to usual care for Thai patients with CVD in all scenarios. A budget impact analysis is needed to estimate the financial impact of adopting this program within the Thai healthcare system.
METHODS: PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL, and EMBASE were searched for randomized trials comparing pharmacologic or surgical obesity interventions to usual care, placebo, or no treatment in adults with OSA. The association between percentage weight loss and AHI change between randomization and last follow-up was evaluated using meta-regression.
PROSPERO: CRD42022378853.
RESULTS: Ten eligible trials (n = 854 patients) were included. Four (n = 211) assessed bariatric surgery, and 6 (n = 643) assessed pharmacologic interventions over a median follow-up of 13 months (interquartile range 6-26 months). The linear best estimate of the change in AHI is 0.45 events per hour (95% Confidence Interval 0.18 to 0.73 events per hour) for every 1% body weight lost.
CONCLUSIONS: Weight loss caused by medication or surgery caused a proportionate improvement of the AHI. Providers could consider extrapolating from this relationship when advising patients of the expected effects of other pharmacologic or surgical interventions without direct evidence in OSA.
METHODS: A comprehensive literature review was conducted, followed by in-depth interviews with key informants. Content analysis was performed to summarize the role of health equity in HTA in 13 health systems in Asia, including Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, China, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, and Vietnam.
RESULTS: Health equity was reported to be considered in most health systems' HTA processes, except for Cambodia and Myanmar, which do not have an established HTA process. Interviews revealed that health equity has been more frequently considered to address the unmet medical needs of specific diseases (eg, high disease burden or severity, rare diseases, cancer, and diseases affecting children and the elderly) in Brunei Darussalam, China, Japan, Malaysia, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, and Vietnam or inequities in socially disadvantaged groups (eg, socioeconomic status and geographical location) in Indonesia and the Philippines. Equity-informative economic evaluation was still in the early stages, with only 3 health systems reporting their use.
CONCLUSIONS: Health equity is considered in the HTA process in most Asian health systems. However, quantitative evaluation of health equity impact is still in its infancy because few health systems have just begun to perform equity-informative economic evaluations.
METHODS: In a single-centered, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled pilot trial conducted from 2019 to 2022, fatigued cancer survivors ≥21 years old were recruited to receive the XBYRT intervention or placebo (5% diluted) once daily for the duration of 8 weeks. Patient-reported outcomes for QOL, CRF, cognition, blood samples for biomarker testing, and adverse events were collected at baseline (T0), 4 weeks (T1), 8 weeks (T2), and 10 weeks (T3) after baseline. Linear regression was performed to evaluate differences between groups at T2 and T3.
RESULTS: A total of 1502 patients were screened, with 672 patients considered eligible. Of the eligible, 15 XBYRT and 13 placebo subjects with similar mean ages (58.5 vs 58.4) were recruited. Both groups were predominantly Chinese (93% vs 62%), breast cancer patients (87% vs 62%), and diagnosed with stage 2 cancer (60% vs 46%). Although no significant difference was found in QOL between groups, the XBYRT group exhibited improved emotional fatigue at T3 (P = .045) and higher BDNF levels at T2 (P = .047) and T3 (P = .029). After baseline adjustment, XBYRT was associated with better perceived cognitive impairment at T2 (P = .011) and T3 (P = .017), as well as overall perceived cognitive function at T3 (P = .028). XBYRT is well tolerated, with grade 3 adverse events reported in three XBYRT (20%) and two placebo (15%) subjects.
CONCLUSION: In this pilot study, XBYRT as an integrative therapy is safe and generates encouraging improvements in cognitive and fatigue symptoms. Difficulties with recruitment limited the generalizability of trial findings, thus findings should be verified through a larger, multi-centered trial.