Search

Introduction: Although persistent inhibition of HBV replication by antiviral therapy has shown to slow disease progression, cost-related access barriers to these essential medicines are becoming salient. The national volume-based procurement (NVBP) was piloted in China and led to substantial reduction in the list price of prescription drugs. To examine the impact of NVBP on selected antiviral medication costs per defined daily dose (DDD), procurement volumes, and spending.Methods: We employed an interrupted time series design to examine changes in cost per defined daily dose (DDD), procurement volumes, and spending for NVBP bid-winning antiviral medications (tenofovir disoproxil fumarate and entecavir) in 11 pilot cities from 2017 to 2020. Procurement transaction data were obtained from 9,454 hospitals in the Chinese Hospital Pharmaceutical Audit (CHPA) database. In the secondary analysis, the control group comprised two non-NVBP drugs (adefovir and lamivudine) procured in 11 cities not exposed to the NVBP.Results: Cost per DDD of the two hepatitis B virus (HBV) antiviral medications reduced by CNY1.598 (p = 0.002) immediately following the implementation of NVBP, dropping from an average cost of CNY16.483 per DDD at baseline to CNY6.420 at the end of the observation period. NVBP implementation resulted in a substantial reduction in daily costs of antivirals and an increase in monthly procurement volumes by 6.674 million DDDs (p = 0.017), while monthly spending was reduced by CNY138.26 million (p = 0.002). In the secondary ITS analysis with a control group, the average cost per DDD of the NVBP bid-winning antivirals declined by CNY4.537 (p < 0.001), monthly procurement volumes increased by 7.209 million DDDs (p = 0.002), and monthly spending dropped by CNY138.83 million (p < 0.001).Conclusion: Volume-based procurement piloted in China may be effective for reducing price and total expenditures and improving drug utilization, which is especially important for HBV patients who need constant access to antiviral therapies.

Objectives: Pharmacoeconomics evaluation (PE) is increasingly used in the healthcare decision-making process in China. Little is known about PE conducted in Chinese Herbal Medicines (CHMs). We aimed to systematically review trends, characteristics, and quality of PE of CHMS.Methods: We systematically searched both Chinese (CNKI, WanFang, and VIP) and English (Pubmed) databases. Studies were included if they were PE studies comparing both costs and outcomes between two or more interventions published in Chinese or English. Assessment of the quality of studies was conducted using the Quality of Health Economic Analyses (QHES) instrument. T-test and Chi-square tests were used to compare the studies before and after the first edition of China Guidelines for PE published in 2011, and between studies published in Chinese and English.Results: A total of 201 articles were included. There was an increasing trend of PE studies on CHMs during the study period. The top three studied diseases were central nervous system (CNS), mental, and behavioral disorders; cardiovascular diseases; and blood, immune and endocrine diseases. The average QHES score for the included studies was 63.37. Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) accounted for the majority (76.6%) of the included studies. Only a quarter of the articles (27.4%) were funded, and there were significantly more studies funded after the publication of China guidelines for PE. About 96.5% of studies did not specify evaluation perspectives and 89.6% of studies had a sample size of less than 300. Around half of the studies (55%) used incremental analysis, but only a few of them considered using a threshold. Half of the studies lacked sensitivity analysis. There was no significant improvement in the quality of studies published after the publication of China Guidelines for PE, and English articles had significantly higher quality than Chinese articles.Conclusion: This study identified several problems in PE studies on CHMs, including having small sample sizes, lacking necessary research elements, and using single evaluation methods. The quality of PE studies on CHMs was not sufficient. Researchers need to understand the standardized way to conduct PE studies and improve the quality and level of PE studies on CHMs.

Background: Big data and real-world data (RWD) have been increasingly used to measure the effectiveness and costs in cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA). However, the characteristics and methodologies of CEA based on big data and RWD remain unknown. The objectives of this study were to review the characteristics and methodologies of the CEA studies based on big data and RWD and to compare the characteristics and methodologies between the CEA studies with or without decision-analytic models. Methods: The literature search was conducted in Medline (Pubmed), Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library (as of June 2020). Full CEA studies with an incremental analysis that used big data and RWD for both effectiveness and costs written in English were included. There were no restrictions regarding publication date. Results: 70 studies on CEA using RWD (37 with decision-analytic models and 33 without) were included. The majority of the studies were published between 2011 and 2020, and the number of CEA based on RWD has been increasing over the years. Few CEA studies used big data. Pharmacological interventions were the most frequently studied intervention, and they were more frequently evaluated by the studies without decision-analytic models, while those with the model focused on treatment regimen. Compared to CEA studies using decision-analytic models, both effectiveness and costs of those using the model were more likely to be obtained from literature review. All the studies using decision-analytic models included sensitivity analyses, while four studies no using the model neither used sensitivity analysis nor controlled for confounders. Conclusion: The review shows that RWD has been increasingly applied in conducting the cost-effectiveness analysis. However, few CEA studies are based on big data. In future CEA studies using big data and RWD, it is encouraged to control confounders and to discount in long-term research when decision-analytic models are not used.

Objective: The prevalence of Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias (ADRD) in women is higher than men. However, the knowledge of gender disparity in ADRD treatment is limited. Therefore, this study aimed to determine the gender disparities in the receipt of anti-dementia medications among Medicare beneficiaries with ADRD in the U.S.Methods: We used data from the Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey 2016. Anti-dementia medications included cholinesterase inhibitors (ChEIs; including rivastigmine, donepezil, and galantamine) and N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonists (including memantine). Descriptive analysis and multivariate logistic regression models were implemented to determine the possible gender disparities in the receipt of anti-dementia medications. Subgroup analyses were conducted to identify gender disparities among beneficiaries with Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and those with only AD-related dementias.Results: Descriptive analyses showed there were statistically significant differences in age, marital status, and Charlson comorbidities index (CCI) between Medicare beneficiaries who received and who did not receive anti-dementia medications. After controlling for covariates, we found that female Medicare beneficiaries with ADRD were 1.7 times more likely to receive anti-dementia medications compared to their male counterparts (odds ratio [OR]: 1.71; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.19–2.45). Specifically, among Medicare beneficiaries with AD, females were 1.2 times more likely to receive anti-dementia medications (Odds Radio: 1.20; 95% confidence interval: 0.58–2.47), and among the Medicare beneficiaries with only AD-related dementias, females were 1.9 times more likely to receive anti-dementia medications (OR: 1.90; 95% CI: 1.23–2.95).Conclusion: Healthcare providers should be aware of gender disparities in receiving anti-dementia medications among patients with ADRD, and the need to plan programs of care to support both women and men. Future approaches to finding barriers of prescribing, receiving and, adhering to anti-dementia medications by gender should include differences in longevity, biology, cognition, social roles, and environment.

Background: Cancer survivors are vulnerable to have medication nonadherence. We aimed to estimate the impact of cost-related medication nonadherence on economic burdens, productivity loss, and functional abilities among cancer survivors.Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted using data from the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS), 2011–2018. Cost-related medication nonadherence was identified based on NHIS prompts. An ordinal logistic regression model was used to determine the impact of cost-related medication nonadherence on survivors’ economic burden. Two negative binomial regression models were implemented to estimate the impact on productivity loss. In addition, four logistic regression models were used to determine the impact on functional abilities. The weighted analysis was used to generate national estimates.Results: Among 35, 773, 286 cancer survivors, 15, 002, 192 (41.9%) respondents reported that they experienced cost-related medication nonadherence. Compared to cancer survivors without cost-related medication nonadherence, those with nonadherence were significantly associated with an increased economic burden (OR: 1.89, 95% CI: 1.70–2.11). Also, cancer survivors with cost-related medication nonadherence were significantly more likely to have an increased bed disability day (IRR: 1.46, 95% CI: 1.21–1.76). In terms of the limitations, cancer survivors with nonadherence were significantly more likely to have both activity limitation (OR: 1.42, 95% CI: 1.25–1.60) and functional limitation (OR: 2.12, 95% CI: 1.81–2.49).Conclusion: Cost-related medication nonadherence increased economic burdens, productivity loss, and limitations in functional abilities among cancer survivors. Strategies are needed to help cancer survivors with cost-related medication nonadherence to be adherent to prescriptions.