BackgroundNumerous epidemiology studies on dyslipidemia have been conducted in China. However, a nationally representative estimate for dyslipidemia prevalence is lacking. The aim of this study is to appraise the nationwide prevalence, awareness, treatment, and control rates of dyslipidemia in adults in China.MethodsWe performed a systematic review of the related observational studies published since 2003 by searching English and Chinese literature databases. Meta-analyses were conducted in eligible studies using a random effect model to summarize the dyslipidemia prevalence, awareness, treatment, and control rates. Heterogeneity and publication bias were analyzed. Sensitivity analyses were performed to explain heterogeneity and examine the impact of study quality on the results of meta-analyses.ResultsThirty-eight papers were included for meta-analyses, with a total sample size of 387,825. The prevalence, awareness, treatment, and control rates of dyslipidemia were 41.9% (95% CI: 37.7% – 46.2%), 24.4% (95% CI: 14.4% – 38.4%), 8.8% (95% CI: 7.7% – 10.0%), and 4.3% (95% CI: 4.1% – 4.5%), respectively. The prevalence of hypercholesterolemia, hypertriglyceridemia, mixed hyperlipidemia, low levels of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and high levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol were 10.1% (95% CI: 5.8% – 16.9%), 17.7% (95% CI: 14.0% – 22.1%), 5.1% (95% CI: 3.1% – 8.2%), 11.0% (95% CI: 8.0% – 15.0%), and 8.8% (95% CI: 4.1% – 17.8%), respectively. Sensitivity analyses revealed that males had a higher prevalence of dyslipidemia (43.2%) than females (35.6%). Study samples of age 30 and above in the eastern region tended to have higher prevalence of dyslipidemia. The quality of the studies has a slight impact on the pooled estimates.ConclusionsThe overall pooled prevalence of dyslipidemia in Chinese adults was estimated to be 41.9%, with males having a higher rate than females.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12963-014-0028-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

No abstract

Background Pembrolizumab, a monoclonal antibody against programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1), is approved by several regulatory agencies for first-line treatment of metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with a PD-L1 tumor proportion score (TPS) ≥ 50% and no epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) or anaplastic lymphoma kinase genomic tumor aberrations. This study was conducted from the perspective of the Hospital Authority in Hong Kong and aimed to evaluate the cost effectiveness of a biomarker (PD-L1) test-and-treat strategy (BTS), in which patients with a TPS ≥ 50% received pembrolizumab and other patients received platinum doublet chemotherapy versus all patients receiving platinum doublet chemotherapy. Methods The model used a partitioned survival approach to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) expressed as the cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. The clinical efficacy, utility and safety data were derived from the KN024 trial. Costs and health outcomes were projected over a 10-year time horizon and discounted at 3% per year. Costs for drug acquisition, PD-L1 testing, drug administration and disease management were used. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to evaluate the robustness of results. Results The BTS approach led to an increase of 0.29 QALYs at an additional cost of Hong Kong dollars (HK$) 249,077 (US$31,933) compared with platinum doublet chemotherapy, resulting in an ICER of HK$865,189 (US$110,922) per QALY gained. This is lower than the World Health Organization cost-effectiveness threshold of three times the 2016 gross domestic product (GDP) per capita for Hong Kong of HK$1017,819 (US$130,490). Probabilistic sensitivity analyses showed a 59.4% chance that the ICER would be below this threshold. Conclusion First-line treatment with pembrolizumab in a BTS to identify patients with NSCLC with PD-L1 TPS ≥ 50% can be considered cost effective in Hong Kong compared with platinum doublet chemotherapy based on a three-times GDP per capita threshold. However, local data on clinical efficacy and safety were not available to estimate overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) specific to patients with NSCLC in Hong Kong. Further, uncertainty is inherent in the survival projections/extrapolation of PFS and OS beyond the trial period, and future research may help to further inform these parameters.A programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) test-and-treat strategy for the use of pembrolizumab in patients undergoing first-line treatment for non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with PD-L1 expression ≥ 50% is associated with a gain of 0.29 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), at an additional total cost of Hong Kong dollars (HK$) 249,077 per patient compared with platinum doublet chemotherapy (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER] of HK$865,189 per QALY gained) (year 2016 values).Key cost-effectiveness drivers were the drug acquisition costs and projections of improved survival.The ICER was below the threshold of three times gross domestic product per capita fo...

ObjectivesHepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a leading cause of cancer-related deaths globally. In China, sorafenib and oxaliplatin plus infusional-fluorouracil/leucovorin (FOLFOX4) are approved for the systemic treatment of advanced HCC. This study compared the cost-effectiveness of these therapies from a healthcare system perspective and a patient perspectives.MethodsA Markov model was constructed using overall and progression-free survival rates and adverse event (AE) rate from two randomized controlled studies of advanced HCC patients from Asia: EACH for FOLFOX4 and ORIENTAL for sorafenib. The patients in the Markov model were followed until death, the length of each Markov cycle was 1 month, and the survival was adjusted for quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Direct medical costs included costs of therapies, AE treatment, general ward and tests. Costs were derived from published sources, interviews with oncologists and hospital data from China. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were performed to test the robustness of the results.ResultsFrom the healthcare system perspective, FOLFOX4 dominated sorafenib with lower therapy costs (FOLFOX4: US$ 6972; sorafenib: US$ 12,289), lower direct medical costs (FOLFOX4: US$ 8428; sorafenib: US$ 12,798), and higher QALYs (FOLFOX4: 0.42; sorafenib: 0.38) per patient. This result was robust according to comprehensive one-way sensitivity analyses. According to the PSA, at the cost-effectiveness threshold for China (3 × GDP, US$ 22,073), FOLFOX4 should be chosen in 63.9% of simulations. From the patient perspective, FOLFOX4 also dominated sorafenib.ConclusionsThe study results indicate that FOLFOX4 dominates sorafenib because it appears to provide higher effectiveness with significantly lower costs in treating Chinese advanced HCC patients.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12962-018-0112-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.