• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

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.

DOI:10.11124/JBIES-23-00511
PMID:39054883
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11554252/
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 .

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

相似文献

1
Adverse drug events in cost-effectiveness models of pharmacological interventions for diabetes, diabetic retinopathy, and diabetic macular edema: a scoping review.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
JBI Evid Synth. 2024 Nov 1;22(11):2194-2266. doi: 10.11124/JBIES-23-00511.
2
Adverse drug events in cost-effectiveness analyses of interventions for diabetic conditions: a scoping review protocol.糖尿病干预措施成本效益分析中药物不良反应的评价:系统评价方案。
JBI Evid Synth. 2022 Dec 1;20(12):3058-3066. doi: 10.11124/JBIES-21-00460.
3
Folic acid supplementation and malaria susceptibility and severity among people taking antifolate antimalarial drugs in endemic areas.在流行地区,服用抗叶酸抗疟药物的人群中,叶酸补充剂与疟疾易感性和严重程度的关系。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022 Feb 1;2(2022):CD014217. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD014217.
4
Including adverse drug events in economic evaluations of anti-tumour necrosis factor-α drugs for adult rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review of economic decision analytic models.纳入抗肿瘤坏死因子-α药物治疗成人类风湿关节炎的经济学评价中的药物不良反应:经济决策分析模型的系统评价。
Pharmacoeconomics. 2014 Feb;32(2):109-34. doi: 10.1007/s40273-013-0120-z.
5
Sensitivity of Cost-Effectiveness to Inclusion of Adverse Drug Events: A Scoping Review of Economic Models of Pharmacological Interventions for Diabetes, Diabetic Retinopathy, and Diabetic Macular Edema.成本效益对纳入药物不良事件的敏感性:糖尿病、糖尿病视网膜病变和糖尿病黄斑水肿药物干预经济模型的范围综述
Clinicoecon Outcomes Res. 2025 Feb 26;17:115-128. doi: 10.2147/CEOR.S509349. eCollection 2025.
6
7
Beyond the black stump: rapid reviews of health research issues affecting regional, rural and remote Australia.超越黑木树:影响澳大利亚地区、农村和偏远地区的健康研究问题的快速综述。
Med J Aust. 2020 Dec;213 Suppl 11:S3-S32.e1. doi: 10.5694/mja2.50881.
8
Digital Health Technology Interventions for Improving Medication Safety: Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations.用于提高用药安全性的数字健康技术干预措施:经济评估的系统评价
J Med Internet Res. 2025 Feb 5;27:e65546. doi: 10.2196/65546.
9
A rapid and systematic review of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of topotecan for ovarian cancer.拓扑替康治疗卵巢癌的临床有效性和成本效益的快速系统评价。
Health Technol Assess. 2001;5(28):1-110. doi: 10.3310/hta5280.
10
Blood pressure control for diabetic retinopathy.糖尿病视网膜病变的血压控制
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Jan 31;1:CD006127. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD006127.pub2.

引用本文的文献

1
Sensitivity of Cost-Effectiveness to Inclusion of Adverse Drug Events: A Scoping Review of Economic Models of Pharmacological Interventions for Diabetes, Diabetic Retinopathy, and Diabetic Macular Edema.成本效益对纳入药物不良事件的敏感性:糖尿病、糖尿病视网膜病变和糖尿病黄斑水肿药物干预经济模型的范围综述
Clinicoecon Outcomes Res. 2025 Feb 26;17:115-128. doi: 10.2147/CEOR.S509349. eCollection 2025.

本文引用的文献

1
Global, regional, and national burden of diabetes from 1990 to 2021, with projections of prevalence to 2050: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021.全球、地区和国家 1990 年至 2021 年糖尿病负担,以及对 2050 年患病率的预测:2021 年全球疾病负担研究的系统分析。
Lancet. 2023 Jul 15;402(10397):203-234. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(23)01301-6. Epub 2023 Jun 22.
2
Whether and How Disutilities of Adverse Events were Used in the Economic Evaluation of Drug Therapy for Cancer Treatment.不良事件的非功利性是否及如何用于癌症治疗药物治疗的经济评价。
Pharmacoeconomics. 2023 Mar;41(3):295-306. doi: 10.1007/s40273-022-01232-9. Epub 2023 Jan 19.
3
Insulin degludec/liraglutide versus its monotherapy on T2D patients: A lifetime cost-utility analysis in China.
德谷胰岛素/利拉鲁肽与单药治疗对2型糖尿病患者的疗效比较:中国的终身成本-效用分析
Front Pharmacol. 2022 Nov 18;13:1011624. doi: 10.3389/fphar.2022.1011624. eCollection 2022.
4
Cost-effectiveness of dexamethasone compared with aflibercept in naïve diabetic macular edema.初治糖尿病性黄斑水肿中地塞米松与阿柏西普的成本效益比较。
Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2022 Dec 1;20(1):61. doi: 10.1186/s12962-022-00401-z.
5
Long-Term Cost-Effectiveness of Subcutaneous Once-Weekly Semaglutide Versus Polyethylene Glycol Loxenatide for Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in China.在中国,皮下注射每周一次司美格鲁肽与聚乙二醇洛塞那肽治疗2型糖尿病的长期成本效益
Diabetes Ther. 2023 Jan;14(1):93-107. doi: 10.1007/s13300-022-01336-7. Epub 2022 Nov 22.
6
Projecting the incidence and costs of major cardiovascular and kidney complications of type 2 diabetes with widespread SGLT2i and GLP-1 RA use: a cost-effectiveness analysis.预测广泛使用 SGLT2i 和 GLP-1RA 治疗 2 型糖尿病的主要心血管和肾脏并发症的发病率和成本:成本效益分析。
Diabetologia. 2023 Apr;66(4):642-656. doi: 10.1007/s00125-022-05832-0. Epub 2022 Nov 21.
7
Model-based predictions on health benefits and budget impact of implementing empagliflozin in people with type 2 diabetes and established cardiovascular disease.基于模型的预测:在患有 2 型糖尿病和已确诊心血管疾病的人群中实施恩格列净的健康获益和预算影响。
Diabetes Obes Metab. 2023 Mar;25(3):748-757. doi: 10.1111/dom.14921. Epub 2022 Dec 2.
8
Cost-effectiveness of insulin degludec/insulin aspart versus biphasic insulin aspart in Chinese population with type 2 diabetes.中文 2 型糖尿病患者中德谷胰岛素/门冬胰岛素与精蛋白锌重组赖脯胰岛素双时相对比的成本-效果分析
Front Public Health. 2022 Oct 18;10:1016937. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.1016937. eCollection 2022.
9
Once-weekly semaglutide versus insulin aspart for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in the UK: A long-term cost-effectiveness analysis based on SUSTAIN 11.每周一次司美格鲁肽对比门冬胰岛素治疗英国 2 型糖尿病:基于 SUSTAIN 11 的长期成本效果分析。
Diabetes Obes Metab. 2023 Feb;25(2):491-500. doi: 10.1111/dom.14892. Epub 2022 Nov 2.
10
Cost-utility analysis of semaglutide for type 2 diabetes after its addition to the National Medical Insurance System in China.在中国国家医保体系纳入司美格鲁肽用于治疗 2 型糖尿病后的成本效用分析。
Diabetes Obes Metab. 2023 Feb;25(2):387-397. doi: 10.1111/dom.14881. Epub 2022 Oct 23.