Data in Brief of: Clinical benefits of moxifloxacin as initial treatment of community-acquired pneumonia: Data from meta-analyses.

Moxifloxacin and levofloxacin are currently recommended as empirical initial treatment options for community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) in China by clinical guidelines and widely used in clinical settings. Several clinical outcomes comparing the efficacy and safety profiles of moxifloxacin versus levofloxacin through a meta-analysis were reported in paper 'Clinical benefits and cost-effectiveness of moxifloxacin as initial treatment for community-acquired pneumonia: a meta-analysis and economic evaluation'. In this dataset, we aimed at investigating more clinical endpoints comparing the efficacy and safety of moxifloxacin and levofloxacin in the treatment of CAP.

Clinical Benefits and Cost-Effectiveness of Moxifloxacin as Initial Treatment for Community-Acquired Pneumonia: A Meta-Analysis and Economic Evaluation.

PURPOSE: Moxifloxacin and levofloxacin are currently recommended as empirical initial treatment options for community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) in China according to guidelines. Most studies that evaluated the efficacy and safety of moxifloxacin and levofloxacin in treating CAP as initial empirical treatment were single-centered trials assessing different clinical end points. In addition, there is limited research investigating moxifloxacin's clinical benefits in the context of health care resource utilization and reimbursement from the payer's perspective in China. Hence, this study was aimed at comparing the clinical efficacy of moxifloxacin and levofloxacin by conducting a meta-analysis and assessing their economic value from the China payer's perspective through a cost-utility analysis model. METHODS: For the meta-analysis, 6 bibliographic databases were searched for relevant publications from January 2000 to August 2020, and studies were assessed for eligibility under predetermined criteria. Meta-analysis was performed by using a random effects model when analyses included >2 trials. For the economic evaluation, a decision-tree model was constructed to investigate the cost-utility of moxifloxacin versus levofloxacin as initial regimens in the treatment of CAP inpatients. Parameter values were derived from meta-analysis, published literature, and clinician survey. The outcome was reported in the form of an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. One-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were undertaken to assess the robustness of the model. FINDINGS: Twenty-seven randomized controlled trials were included in the meta-analysis. Results indicated that the clinical response rate at the test-of-cure visit with initial treatment of moxifloxacin was significantly higher than that of levofloxacin (3441 patients; random effects model; I2 = 49%; odds ratio, 3.35; 95% CI, 2.35-4.77; P < 0.001). In terms of the safety profile, total adverse events were not significantly different between the 2 groups (2770 patients; random effects model; I2 = 40%; odds ratio, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.56-1.06; P = 0.11). Output of the cost-utility model showed that under the willingness-to-pay threshold of one-time China gross domestic product per capita, moxifloxacin is dominant over levofloxacin, being less costly and more efficacious (0.002 quality-adjusted life year gained, CNY 844 [US$131] saved in total cost, negative incremental cost-effectiveness ratio). Sensitivity analyses indicated the robustness of the model as moxifloxacin remained dominant when model parameter values fluctuated. IMPLICATIONS: Moxifloxacin is more efficacious than levofloxacin as the initial empirical treatment for CAP. In addition, treatment of CAP with moxifloxacin instead of levofloxacin is expected to be cost-saving from the perspective of payers in China. However, for the cost-utility analysis, in the absence of a national representative database on costs for hospitalization in China, inputs in the cost-utility model could be underestimated or overestimated due to estimating errors applied to both treatment arms.

Experiences with cancer survey in China.

BACKGROUND: China accounts for approximately 27% of global cancer deaths. However, to the authors' knowledge, the lasting effects of cancer and cancer treatments on patients have not been investigated in China. The authors developed a questionnaire, the China Survey of Experiences with Cancer, for Chinese cancer survivors. This article introduces the study design and domains covered in the questionnaire. METHODS: The Cancer Survivorship Supplement of the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) was used as a reference to develop the questionnaire. The final in-person surveys were conducted in 2015 and 2016. Samples were chosen through multistage sampling. The authors described the characteristics of the study participants and their cancer experiences. RESULTS: At the time of last follow-up, a total of 1166 patients had completed at least 1 component of the survey. Approximately 59% of the cancer survivors were aged ≥60 years. Greater than one-half of the participants had an elementary education level or less (51%) and a yearly family income of <$3174. Chinese cancer survivors were more likely to retire earlier than planned compared with American cancer survivors (37% vs 9%). The majority of Chinese cancer survivors (84%) reported that their work abilities were hindered by their cancer or cancer treatments. Approximately one-half of patients in China had to incur debt because of cancer, whereas <10% of patients in the United States reported having incurred debt. CONCLUSIONS: The survey provides information regarding the burden of cancer in China that to the authors' knowledge currently is unavailable from other sources, including medical care use, financial impacts, employment patterns, and life experience after a cancer diagnosis for survivors and their families.