BackgroundMetformin is the first-line oral hypoglycemic agent for type 2 diabetes mellitus recommended by international guidelines. However, little information exists comparing it with acarbose which is also commonly used in China. This study expanded knowledge by combining direct and indirect evidence to ascertain the glucose lowering effects of both drugs.MethodsPubMed (1980- December 2013) and China National Knowledge Infrastructure databases (1994-January 2014) were systematically searched for eligible randomized controlled trials from Chinese and English literatures. Meta-analysis was conducted to estimate the glucose lowering effects of metformin vs. acarbose, or either of them vs. common comparators (placebo or sulphonylureas), using random- and fixed-effect models. Bucher method with indirect treatment comparison calculator was applied to convert the summary estimates from the meta-analyses into weighted-mean-difference (WMD) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to represent the comparative efficacy between metformin and acarbose.ResultsA total of 75 studies were included in the analysis. In direct comparison (8 trials), metformin reduced glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) by 0.06% more than acarbose, with no significant difference (WMD,-0.06%; 95% CI, -0.32% to 0.20%). In indirect comparisons (67 trials), by using placebo and sulphonylureas as common comparators, metformin achieved significant HbA1c reduction than acarbose, by -0.38% (WMD,-0.38%, 95% CI, -0.736% to -0.024%) and -0.34% (WMD, -0.34%, 95% CI, -0.651% to -0.029%) respectively.ConclusionThe glucose lowering effects of metformin monotherapy and acarbose monotherapy are the same by direct comparison, while metformin is a little better by indirect comparison. This implies that the effect of metformin is at least as good as acarbose's.

BACKGROUND Infliximab was the first approved biologic treatment for moderate to severe Crohn’s disease (MS-CD) in China. However, the cost-effectiveness of infliximab maintenance therapy (IMT) for MS-CD relative to conventional maintenance therapy remained unclarified. AIM To assess the cost-effectiveness of IMT for MS-CD in Chinese patients from the perspective of Chinese public insurance payer. METHODS A cohort of MS-CD patients managed in a Chinese tertiary care hospital was created to compare IMT with conventional maintenance therapy (CMT) for clinical outcomes and direct medical costs over a 1-year observation time using conventional regression analyses. A decision-analytic model with the generated evidence was constructed to assess the cost-effectiveness of IMT relative to CMT using reimbursed medical costs. RESULTS Based on the included 389 patients, IMT was associated with significantly higher disease remission chance [odds ratio: 4.060, P = 0.003], lower risk of developing new complications (odds ratio: 0.527, P = 0.010), higher utility value for quality of life (coefficient 0.822, P = 0.008), and lower total hospital costs related to disease management (coefficient -0.378, P = 0.008) than CMT. Base-case cost-effectiveness analysis estimated that IMT could cost Chinese health insurance payers ¥55260 to gain one quality-adjusted life year (QALY). The cost-effectiveness of IMT was mainly driven by the estimate of quality of life, treatment efficacy of maintenance therapy, mortality risk associated with active disease, and unit price of infliximab. The probability that IMT was cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of three times gross domestic product [2018 Chinese gross domestic product per capita (GDPPC)] was 86.4%. CONCLUSION IMT significantly improved real-world health outcomes and cost the Chinese public health insurance payers less than one GDPPC to gain one QALY in Chinese MS-CD patients.

No abstract