A systematic review on reporting quality of economic evaluations for negotiated glucose-lowering drugs in China national reimbursement drug list.
Economic evaluations
Glucose-lowering drugs
National Reimbursement Drug List (NRDL)
Quality evaluation
Systematic review
Journal
BMC health services research
ISSN: 1472-6963
Titre abrégé: BMC Health Serv Res
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088677
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 May 2024
01 May 2024
Historique:
received:
10
01
2023
accepted:
17
04
2024
medline:
2
5
2024
pubmed:
2
5
2024
entrez:
1
5
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
This study aimed to examine the reporting quality of existing economic evaluations for negotiated glucose-lowering drugs (GLDs) included in China National Reimbursement Drug List (NRDL) using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2013 (CHEERS 2013). We performed a systematic literature research through 7 databases to identify published economic evaluations for GLDs included in the China NRDL up to March 2021. Reporting quality of identified studies was assessed by two independent reviewers based on the CHEERS checklist. The Kruskal-Wallis test and Mann-Whitney U test were performed to examine the association between reporting quality and characteristics of the identified studies. We have identified 24 studies, which evaluated six GLDs types. The average score rate of the included studies was 77.41% (SD:13.23%, Range 47.62%-91.67%). Among all the required reporting items, characterizing heterogeneity (score rate = 4.17%) was the least satisfied item. Among six parts of CHEERS, results part scored least at 0.55 (score rate = 54.79%) because of the incompleteness of characterizing uncertainty. Results from the Kruskal-Wallis test and Mann-Whitney U test showed that model choice, journal type, type of economic evaluations, and study perspective were associated with the reporting quality of the studies. There remains room to improve the reporting quality of economic evaluations for GLDs in NRDL. Checklists such as CHEERS should be widely used to improve the reporting quality of economic researches in China.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
This study aimed to examine the reporting quality of existing economic evaluations for negotiated glucose-lowering drugs (GLDs) included in China National Reimbursement Drug List (NRDL) using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2013 (CHEERS 2013).
METHODS
METHODS
We performed a systematic literature research through 7 databases to identify published economic evaluations for GLDs included in the China NRDL up to March 2021. Reporting quality of identified studies was assessed by two independent reviewers based on the CHEERS checklist. The Kruskal-Wallis test and Mann-Whitney U test were performed to examine the association between reporting quality and characteristics of the identified studies.
RESULTS
RESULTS
We have identified 24 studies, which evaluated six GLDs types. The average score rate of the included studies was 77.41% (SD:13.23%, Range 47.62%-91.67%). Among all the required reporting items, characterizing heterogeneity (score rate = 4.17%) was the least satisfied item. Among six parts of CHEERS, results part scored least at 0.55 (score rate = 54.79%) because of the incompleteness of characterizing uncertainty. Results from the Kruskal-Wallis test and Mann-Whitney U test showed that model choice, journal type, type of economic evaluations, and study perspective were associated with the reporting quality of the studies.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
There remains room to improve the reporting quality of economic evaluations for GLDs in NRDL. Checklists such as CHEERS should be widely used to improve the reporting quality of economic researches in China.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38693514
doi: 10.1186/s12913-024-11001-3
pii: 10.1186/s12913-024-11001-3
doi:
Substances chimiques
Hypoglycemic Agents
0
Types de publication
Systematic Review
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
562Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Sun H, Saeedi P, Karuranga S, Pinkepank M, Ogurtsova K, Duncan BB, et al. IDF Diabetes Atlas: Global, regional and country-level diabetes prevalence estimates for 2021 and projections for 2045. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2022;183:109119.
doi: 10.1016/j.diabres.2021.109119
pubmed: 34879977
Wang Q, Zhang X, Fang L, Guan Q, Guan L, Li Q. Prevalence, awareness, treatment and control of diabetes mellitus among middle-aged and elderly people in a rural Chinese population: a cross-sectional study. Plos One. 2018;13(6):e0198343.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0198343
pubmed: 29856828
pmcid: 5983453
Ma RCW. Epidemiology of diabetes and diabetic complications in China. Diabetologia. 2018;61(6):1249–60.
doi: 10.1007/s00125-018-4557-7
pubmed: 29392352
Tang M, Song P, He J. Progress on drug pricing negotiations in China. Biosci Trends. 2020;13(6):464–8.
doi: 10.5582/bst.2019.01339
pubmed: 31875587
Brain D, Jadambaa A. Economic evaluation of long-term survivorship care for cancer patients in OECD Countries: a systematic review for decision-makers. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(21):11558.
doi: 10.3390/ijerph182111558
pubmed: 34770070
pmcid: 8582644
Zhao J, Du S, Zhu Y, Liang Y, Lu J, Chang F. A systematic review of health economic evaluation on targeted therapies for first-line treatment of metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC): quality evaluation. Cancer Manag Res. 2020;12:4357–68.
doi: 10.2147/CMAR.S248471
pubmed: 32606931
pmcid: 7293415
Couchoud C, Fagnoni P, Aubin F, Westeel V, Maurina T, Thiery-Vuillemin A, et al. Economic evaluations of cancer immunotherapy: a systematic review and quality evaluation. Cancer Immunol Immunother. 2020;69(10):1947–58.
doi: 10.1007/s00262-020-02646-0
pubmed: 32676716
pmcid: 11027639
Monten C, Veldeman L, Verhaeghe N, Lievens Y. A systematic review of health economic evaluation in adjuvant breast radiotherapy: quality counted by numbers. Radiother Oncol. 2017;125(2):186–92.
doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2017.08.034
pubmed: 28923574
Jones DA, Smith J, Mei XW, Hawkins MA, Maughan T, van den Heuvel F, et al. A systematic review of health economic evaluations of proton beam therapy for adult cancer: appraising methodology and quality. Clin Transl Radiat Oncol. 2020;20:19–26.
pubmed: 31754652
Qu Z, Zhang S, Krauth C, Liu X. A systematic review of decision analytic modeling techniques for the economic evaluation of dental caries interventions. Plos One. 2019;14(5):e0216921.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0216921
pubmed: 31091279
pmcid: 6519822
Hausen H. Oral health promotion reduces plaque and gingival bleeding in the short term. Evid Based Dent. 2005;6(2):31.
doi: 10.1038/sj.ebd.6400325
pubmed: 16208381
Si L, Yin M, Wang J, Yang S, Zhang J, Wei L. Evaluation of quality of pharmacoeconomic studies involved in traditional Chinese medicine in China. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2021;21(5):1049–60.
doi: 10.1080/14737167.2020.1800455
pubmed: 32777958
Husereau D, Drummond M, Petrou S, Carswell C, Moher D, Greenberg D, et al. Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement. Value Health. 2013;16(2):e1-5.
doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2013.02.010
pubmed: 23538200
Drummond MF, Daniel MC. Improving the quality of papers published in pharmacoeconomics and outcomes research. Value Health. 2013;16(2):229–30.
doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2013.02.001
pubmed: 23538174
Tao LW, Fangxu. Cost effectiveness analysis of insulin degludec/insulin aspart versus insulin glargine in insulin-naive type 2 diabetes mellitus after health insurance negotiation and access in China. Drug Eval. 2021;18(04):193–6.
FangXu W, Lei Z, LiBo T. Cost effectiveness analysis of degumendonidine versus insulin glargine in the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus with poor drug control by oral hypoglycemic in China. Chin J Pharma Econ. 2020;15(07):24–30.
Shi J, Liu Q, Wu J. Economic burden of type 2 diabetes mellitus patients and medical insurance cost effectiveness analysis on the replacement treatment in the insured urban population of China. Chinese Health Insurance. 2016;07:56–9.
Jiang P, Zhu B, Sun S, Ma S. Cost minimization analysis of 2 options for the treatment of type 2 diabetes with OAD failure. China Pharmacist. 2013;16(07):1042–3.
Hu C, Han S, Liu F, Guan X, Shi L. Short-term cost effectiveness of liraglutide versus rosiglitazone、glimepiride、exenatide and insulin glargine in Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes. Chin J Pharma Econ. 2014;9(04):9–13.
Gu S, Wang X, Qiao Q, Gao W, Wang J, Dong H. Cost effectiveness of exenatide twice daily vs insulin glargine as add-on therapy to oral antidiabetic agents in patients with type 2 diabetes in China. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2017;19(12):1688–97.
doi: 10.1111/dom.12991
pubmed: 28452095
Zhang X, Liu S, Li Y, Wang Y, Tian M, Liu G. Long-term effectiveness and cost effectiveness of metformin combined with liraglutide or exenatide for type 2 diabetes mellitus based on the CORE diabetes model study. Plos One. 2016;11(6):e0156393.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0156393
pubmed: 27304904
pmcid: 4909290
Deng J, Gu S, Shao H, Dong H, Zou D, Shi L. Cost effectiveness analysis of exenatide twice daily (BID) vs insulin glargine once daily (QD) as add-on therapy in Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus inadequately controlled by oral therapies. J Med Econ. 2015;18(11):974–89.
doi: 10.3111/13696998.2015.1067622
pubmed: 26134916
Meng G, Wang D, Pang J, Pen P, Mo J, Yan H, et al. Cost Minimization analysis of liraglutide and insulin glargine treating type 2 diabetes. China Pharm. 2016;27(17):2309–12.
Xiao Q, Liu H. Long term clinical and economic outcomes asociated with liraglutide versus sitagliptin in the treatment of type 2 diabetes. Chin Hosp Pharm J. 2018;38(11):1207–11+35.
Ma L, Li Q, Leng G. Pharmacoeconomic evaluation of adverse events of insulin glargine and liraglutide using markov model. Chin J Pharmacoepidemiol. 2019;28(03):176-80+204.
Gu S, Shi L, Shao H, Wang X, Hu X, Gu Y, et al. Choice across 10 pharmacologic combination strategies for type 2 diabetes: a cost effectiveness analysis. BMC Med. 2020;18(1):378.
doi: 10.1186/s12916-020-01837-x
pubmed: 33267884
pmcid: 7713153
Gao L, Zhao FL, Li SC. Cost utility analysis of liraglutide versus glimepiride as add-on to metformin in type 2 diabetes patients in China. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2012;28(4):436–44.
doi: 10.1017/S0266462312000608
pubmed: 23006540
Men P, Qu S, Luo W, Li C, Zhai S. Comparison of lixisenatide in combination with basal insulin vs other insulin regimens for the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled by basal insulin: Systematic review, network meta-analysis and cost effectiveness analysis. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2020;22(1):107–15.
doi: 10.1111/dom.13871
pubmed: 31469217
Men P, Qu S, Song Z, Liu Y, Li C, Zhai S. Lixisenatide for type 2 diabetes mellitus patients inadequately controlled on oral antidiabetic drugs: a mixed-treatment comparison meta-analysis and cost utility analysis. Diabetes Ther. 2020;11(8):1745–55.
doi: 10.1007/s13300-020-00857-3
pubmed: 32562244
pmcid: 7376816
Xiong C, Zhu Y, Li Y, Feng K, Feng W. Pharmacoeconomic evaluation of dapagliflozin combined with metformin in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus. China Pharm. 2020;31(15):1880–6.
Ye Q, Qian D, Tan X, Mei Z, Wang Y, Situ B. Long-term economic evaluation of SGLT-2i versus DPP-4i combined with metformin in the treatment of type 2 diabetes. Chin J Pharma Econ. 2020;15(05):5–14+8.
Cai X, Shi L, Yang W, Gu S, Chen Y, Nie L, et al. Cost effectiveness analysis of dapagliflozin treatment versus metformin treatment in Chinese population with type 2 diabetes. J Med Econ. 2019;22(4):336–43.
doi: 10.1080/13696998.2019.1570220
pubmed: 30663458
Hu S, Deng X, Ma Y, Li Z, Wang Y, Wang Y. Cost utility analysis of dapagliflozin versus saxagliptin treatment as monotherapy or combination therapy as add-on to metformin for treating type 2 diabetes mellitus. Appl Health Econ Health Pol. 2021;19(1):69–79.
doi: 10.1007/s40258-020-00603-7
Gu S, Mu Y, Zhai S, Zeng Y, Zhen X, Dong H. Cost effectiveness of dapagliflozin versus acarbose as a monotherapy in type 2 diabetes in China. Plos One. 2016;11(11):e0165629.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0165629
pubmed: 27806087
pmcid: 5091768
Hou X, Wan X, Wu B. Cost effectiveness of canagliflozin versus dapagliflozin added to metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes in China. Front Pharmacol. 2019:10;480.
doi: 10.3389/fphar.2019.00480
pubmed: 31143117
pmcid: 6521739
Nian H, Wan X, Ma J, Jie F, Wu B. Economic evaluation of dapagliflozin versus metformin in Chinese patients whose diabetes is inadequately controlled with diet and exercise. Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2020;18:12.
doi: 10.1186/s12962-020-00208-w
pubmed: 32140079
pmcid: 7048053
Shao H, Zhai S, Zou D, Mir MU, Zawadzki NK, Shi Q, et al. Cost effectiveness analysis of dapagliflozin versus glimepiride as monotherapy in a Chinese population with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Curr Med Res Opin. 2017;33(2):359–69.
doi: 10.1080/03007995.2016.1257978
pubmed: 27817216
Men P, Liu T, Zhai S. Empagliflozin in type 2 diabetes mellitus patients with high cardiovascular risk: a model-based cost utility analysis in China. Diabetes Metab Syndr Obes. 2020;13:2823–31.
doi: 10.2147/DMSO.S266901
pubmed: 32848438
pmcid: 7431175
Rezapour A, Souresrafil A, Peighambari MM, Heidarali M, Tashakori-Miyanroudi M. Economic evaluation of programs against COVID-19: a systematic review. Int J Surg. 2021;85:10–8.
doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2020.11.015
pubmed: 33227532
Faggion CM Jr, Pandis N, Cardoso GC, Rodolfo B, Morel LL, Moraes RR. Reporting of conflict of interest and sponsorship in dental journals. J Dent. 2020;102:103452.
doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2020.103452
pubmed: 32805358
China Guidelines for Pharmacoeconomic Evaluations (2020). 2020. Available from: https://tools.ispor.org/PEguidelines/source/China-Guidelines-for-Pharmacoeconomic-Evaluations-2020.pdf .
Xu T, Fang H. Introduction to health economic evaluation guidelines. Chin Health Econ. 2016;35(5):5–8.