RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Neuromuscular blockade and pneumoperitoneum (PP) are important factors to ensure successful laparoscopic surgery. However, residual neuromuscular blockade (rNMB) and PP are associated with many unfavorable complications. The aim of this study is to compare the cost-effectiveness of using sugammadex versus neostigmine in laparoscopic surgery in China. METHODS: A decision tree model was developed with a time horizon based on laparoscopic surgery related hospitalization duration. 2000 patients using sugammadex or neostigmine were simulated within the model. The model outcomes included incidence of rNMB and PP related complications and their treatment costs. Data on clinical efficacy, safety and cost were collected from published literature and interviews of physicians. RESULTS: The model projected that treatment with sugammadex instead of neostigmine would lead to 673 fewer total complications, including rNMB/PP related complications, hospitalization, and other AEs (621 events versus 1294 events, respectively). Use of sugammadex was associated with an incremental medication cost of ¥1,360,410. However, 93.6% of the increased medication cost can be off-set by the reduced costs attributable to treatment of rNMB related complications, PP related complications, hospitalization and other adverse events in sugammadex group. In aggregate, the sugammadex group incurred an incremental cost of ¥86,610 to prevent 673 complications, (¥128.56 per one rNMB/PP related complications prevention). One-way sensitivity analysis confirmed the robustness of the model. CONCLUSIONS: Use of sugammadex in replacement of neostigmine would result in significantly lower rNMB/PP related complications but at a substantially higher medication cost. Upon accounting for the costs associated with treatment of rNMB/PP related complications, 93.6% of medication cost is projected to be offset. In balance, sugammadex appears to offer good value for reversal of neuromuscular blockade for laparoscopic surgery in China.
RESUMO
Objectives: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of olmesartan/amlodipine fixed-dose combination vs olmesartan and amlodipine free combination, amlodipine single drug, and valsartan/amlodipine fixed-dose combination in the treatment of hypertensive patients from payer perspective in China.Methods: A Markov model was constructed, which included five health states of hypertensive patients who are aged 35-84 years at baseline and free of cardiovascular disease. Clinical data were obtained from a network meta-analysis. Epidemiology data, adverse events (AEs), cost, and utility data were obtained from the literature. The cost associated with AEs was estimated based on the cost of same symptoms of hypertensive patients in an electric medical record database. The model projected quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained, total costs per patient in a 20-year time horizon, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Probability sensitivity analyses (PSA) and one-way sensitivity analyses were conducted for the main parameters to test the robustness of the model.Results: Compared to olmesartan and amlodipine free combination, amlodipine, and valsartan/amlodipine fixed-dose combination, treatment with olmesartan/amlodipine fixed-dose combination led to fewer CVD events and deaths; resulted in an incremental cost of ¥-5,439 ($-791.36), ¥6,530 ($950.09), and ¥-1,019 ($-148.26) and gained additional QALYs of 0.052, 0.094, and 0.037 per patient, respectively. Compared with olmesartan and amlodipine free combination and valsartan/amlodipine fixed-dose combination, olmesartan/amlodipine fixed-dose combination was dominant. Compared with amlodipine alone, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were below the WHO recommended cost-effectiveness threshold, indicating the olmesartan/amlodipine fixed-dose combination was a cost-effective option for hypertensive patients in China. The 10-years' time horizon scenario analysis showed similar results to the 20-years' time horizon. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis and one-way sensitivity analyses showed the robustness of the model results.Conclusions: Olmesartan/amlodipine fixed-dose combination confers better health outcomes and costs less compared with olmesartan and amlodipine free combination and valsartan/amlodipine fixed-dose combination, and is cost-effective compared to amlodipine for hypertension treatment in China.