BackgroundTo conduct an indirect treatment comparison of patients with high-volume mHSPC and a cost analysis between Abi-ADT and Doc-ADT therapies in China.MethodsThe Bucher technique for indirect treatment comparison was used. A cost analysis was conducted from both healthcare and patient perspectives.ResultsThe indirect treatment comparison demonstrated no significant difference in PFS for Abi-ADT versus Doc-ADT (HR: 0.84, 95% CI 0.66–1.07). Doc-ADT therapy costs less than Abi-ADT, with potential savings of up to RMB 887,057 per patient from the healthcare perspective and RMB 226,210 per patient from the patient perspective.ConclusionsNo significant differences in PFS between Doc-ADT and Abi-ADT therapy for patients with high-volume mHSPC. Doc-ADT therapy is a cost-saving alternative to Abi-ADT in China.

No abstract

BackgroundAmisulpride was introduced into China in 2010 as a second-generation atypical antipsychotic, while olanzapine has been on the market since 1999 as one of the leading treatments for schizophrenia in China. Since more Chinese patients are gaining access to amisulpride, the study aims to compare the efficacy, safety, and costs between amisulpride and olanzapine for schizophrenia treatment in China.MethodsPubMed, Embase, the Cochrane library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) and WanFang database were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) up to July 2018. The Cochrane Risk of Bias tool was utilized to assess the quality of included studies. A meta-analysis was performed to compare the efficacy and safety of amisulpride and olanzapine, followed by a cost-minimization analysis using local drug and medical costs reported in China.ResultsTwenty RCTs with 2000 patients were included in the systematic review. There were no significant differences between amisulpride and olanzapine on efficacy measures based on scores from the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale, the Scale for the Assessment of Negative Symptoms, the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale and the Clinical Global Impressions-Severity or Improvement. For safety outcomes, amisulpride was associated with lower fasting blood glucose and less abnormal liver functions as well as significantly lower risks of weight gain, constipation, and somnolence; olanzapine was associated with significantly lower risks of insomnia and lactation/amenorrhea/sexual hormone disorder. No significant differences were found in risks of extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS), tremor, akathisia, abnormal corrected QT interval. Cost-minimization analysis showed that amisulpride was likely to be a cost-saving alternative in China, with potential savings of 1358 Chinese Yuan (CNY) per patient for a three-month schizophrenia treatment compared with olanzapine.ConclusionAs the first meta-analysis and cost-minimization analysis comparing the efficacy, safety and cost of amisulpride and olanzapine within a Chinese setting, the study suggests that amisulpride may be an effective, well-tolerated, and cost-saving antipsychotic drug alternative in China.

No abstract

Introduction The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy, safety and cost-utility (from the Chinese health insurance perspective) of lixisenatide and insulin regimens in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) inadequately controlled on oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs). Methods A comprehensive literature search of English (PubMed and Cochrane Library) and Chinese (CNKI and WanFang) language databases was performed, and head-to-head relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were retrieved and analyzed by performing a mixed-treatment comparison (MTC) meta-analysis for efficacy and safety endpoints. A cost–utility analysis was then conducted using the IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model to compare the lifetime pharmacoeconomic profiles among the treatment groups. Results Eleven RCTs were included in this MTC meta-analysis. Regarding glycated hemoglobin targets, lixisenatide was similar to both basal insulin (mean difference [MD] 0.27%; 95% credible interval [CrI] 0.02%, 0.57%) and premixed insulin (MD 0.32%; 95% CrI − 0.01%, 0.66%), respectively. Statistically significant differences were found for changes in body weight in favor of lixisenatide compared with basal insulin (MD − 3.22 kg; 95% CrI − 5.51 kg, − 0.94 kg) and premixed insulin (MD − 2.68 kg; 95% CrI − 5.16 kg, − 0.20 kg). The relative risk (RR) of symptomatic hypoglycemia associated with lixisenatide was also significantly lower than that associated with basal insulin (RR 0.22; 95% CrI 0.09, 0.52) and premixed insulin (RR 0.17; 95% CrI 0.07, 0.41). The cost–utility analysis yielded results of ¥61,072 ($8565, vs. basal insulin) and ¥127,169 ($17,836, vs. premixed insulin) per quality-adjusted life year gained, with both values falling within the willingness-to-pay threshold in China. Conclusions For T2DM patients inadequately controlled on OADs, lixisenatide was shown to be comparable to basal insulin and premixed insulin in terms of HbA1c and better than both of the latter in terms of both body weight loss and hypoglycemia. Lixisenatide was also a cost-effective treatment option from the perspective of Chinese health insurance. Electronic Supplementary Material The online version of this article (10.1007/s13300-020-00857-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.