Suppr超能文献

糖尿病、糖尿病视网膜病变和糖尿病黄斑水肿药物干预成本效益模型中的药物不良事件:一项范围综述

Adverse drug events in cost-effectiveness models of pharmacological interventions for diabetes, diabetic retinopathy, and diabetic macular edema: a scoping review.

作者信息

Pesonen Mari, Jylhä Virpi, Kankaanpää Eila

机构信息

Department of Health and Social Management, University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio, Finland.

Finnish Centre for Evidence-Based Health Care: A JBI Centre of Excellence, Helsinki, Finland.

出版信息

JBI Evid Synth. 2024 Nov 1;22(11):2194-2266. doi: 10.11124/JBIES-23-00511.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this review was to examine the role of adverse drug events (ADEs) caused by pharmacological interventions in cost-effectiveness models for diabetes mellitus, diabetic retinopathy, and diabetic macular edema.

INTRODUCTION

Guidelines for economic evaluation recognize the importance of including ADEs in the analysis, but in practice, consideration of ADEs in cost-effectiveness models seem to be vague. Inadequate inclusion of these harmful outcomes affects the reliability of the results, and the information provided by economic evaluation could be misleading. Reviewing whether and how ADEs are incorporated in cost-effectiveness models is necessary to understand the current practices of economic evaluation.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

Studies included were published between 2011-2022 in English, representing cost-effectiveness analyses using modeling framework for pharmacological interventions in the treatment of diabetes mellitus, diabetic retinopathy, or diabetic macular edema. Other types of analyses and other types of conditions were excluded.

METHODS

The databases searched included MEDLINE (PubMed), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), Scopus, Web of Science Core Collection, and NHS Economic Evaluation Database. Gray literature was searched via the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, European Network for Health Technology Assessment, the National Institute for Health and Care Research, and the International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment. The search was conducted on January 1, 2023. Titles and abstracts were screened for inclusion by 2 independent reviewers. Full-text review was conducted by 3 independent reviewers. A data extraction form was used to extract and analyze the data. Results were presented in tabular format with a narrative summary, and discussed in the context of existing literature and guidelines.

RESULTS

A total of 242 reports were extracted and analyzed in this scoping review. For the included analyses, type 2 diabetes was the most common disease (86%) followed by type 1 diabetes (10%), diabetic macular edema (9%), and diabetic retinopathy (0.4%). The majority of the included analyses used a health care payer perspective (88%) and had a time horizon of 30 years or more (75%). The most common model type was a simulation model (57%), followed by a Markov simulation model (18%). Of the included cost-effectiveness analyses, 26% included ADEs in the modeling, and 13% of the analyses excluded them. Most of the analyses (61%) partly considered ADEs; that is, only 1 or 2 ADEs were included. No difference in overall inclusion of ADEs between the different conditions existed, but the models for diabetic retinopathy and diabetic macular edema more often omitted the ADE-related impact on quality of life compared with the models for diabetes mellitus. Most analyses included ADEs in the models as probabilities (55%) or as a submodel (40%), and the most common source for ADE incidences were clinical trials (65%).

CONCLUSIONS

The inclusion of ADEs in cost-effectiveness models is suboptimal. The ADE-related costs were better captured than the ADE-related impact on quality of life, which was most pronounced in the models for diabetic retinopathy and diabetic macular edema. Future research should investigate the potential impact of ADEs on the results, and identify the criteria and policies for practical inclusion of ADEs in economic evaluation.

SUPPLEMENTAL DIGITAL CONTENT

A Finnish-language version of the abstract of this review is available: http://links.lww.com/SRX/A68 .

摘要

目的

本综述的目的是研究药物干预引起的不良药物事件(ADEs)在糖尿病、糖尿病视网膜病变和糖尿病黄斑水肿成本效益模型中的作用。

引言

经济评估指南认可在分析中纳入ADEs的重要性,但在实践中,成本效益模型中对ADEs的考量似乎并不明确。这些有害结果纳入不足会影响结果的可靠性,经济评估提供的信息可能会产生误导。回顾ADEs是否以及如何纳入成本效益模型对于了解当前经济评估实践很有必要。

纳入标准

纳入的研究于2011年至2022年间以英文发表,代表了使用建模框架对糖尿病、糖尿病视网膜病变或糖尿病黄斑水肿治疗中的药物干预进行的成本效益分析。排除其他类型的分析和其他类型的疾病。

方法

检索的数据库包括MEDLINE(PubMed)、CINAHL(EBSCOhost)、Scopus、科学引文索引核心合集和英国国家卫生与临床优化研究所经济评估数据库。通过英国国家卫生与临床优化研究所、欧洲卫生技术评估网络、国家卫生与保健研究所以及国际卫生技术评估机构网络检索灰色文献。检索于2023年1月1日进行。由2名独立评审员筛选标题和摘要以确定是否纳入。由3名独立评审员进行全文评审。使用数据提取表提取和分析数据。结果以表格形式呈现并伴有叙述性总结,并在现有文献和指南的背景下进行讨论。

结果

本范围综述共提取并分析了242份报告。对于纳入的分析,2型糖尿病是最常见的疾病(86%),其次是1型糖尿病(10%)、糖尿病黄斑水肿(9%)和糖尿病视网膜病变(0.4%)。纳入分析的大多数采用医疗保健支付方视角(88%),时间跨度为30年或更长(75%)。最常见的模型类型是模拟模型(57%),其次是马尔可夫模拟模型(18%)。在纳入的成本效益分析中,26%在建模中纳入了ADEs,13%的分析将其排除。大多数分析(61%)部分考虑了ADEs;也就是说,仅纳入了1种或2种ADEs。不同疾病在ADEs总体纳入方面不存在差异,但与糖尿病模型相比,糖尿病视网膜病变和糖尿病黄斑水肿模型更常忽略ADEs对生活质量的影响。大多数分析在模型中以概率(55%)或作为子模型(40%)纳入ADEs,ADE发生率最常见的来源是临床试验(65%)。

结论

在成本效益模型中纳入ADEs并不理想。与ADEs对生活质量的影响相比,ADE相关成本得到了更好的体现,这在糖尿病视网膜病变和糖尿病黄斑水肿模型中最为明显。未来的研究应调查ADEs对结果的潜在影响,并确定在经济评估中实际纳入ADEs的标准和政策。

补充数字内容

本综述的芬兰语摘要版本可获取:http://links.lww.com/SRX/A68

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/64cb/11554252/0ef32955b3c0/srx-22-2194-g001.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验