The disparity in hesitancy toward COVID-19 vaccination between older individuals in nursing homes and those in the community in Taizhou, China.

PURPOSE: Older individuals are priority coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine recipients. Our aim was to investigate the prevalence of and factors influencing vaccine hesitancy in older individuals living in nursing homes and communities. METHODS: A self-administered COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy survey was conducted from September 2021 to December 2021 among people aged ≥ 60 years in eight nursing homes (382 participants) and the community (112 participants) in Taizhou, China. The response rate was 72.1% (382/530) for older adults in nursing homes and 68.7% (112/163) for older adults in the community. RESULTS: We found that 58.1% of the older individuals in nursing homes and 36.6% of those in the community were hesitant to receive the COVID-19 vaccine and that there was a statistically significant difference (P < 0.001). Multiple logistic regression results indicated that the main factors influencing hesitation among the older individuals in nursing homes were being male (Odds Ratio (OR) = 1.67, 95% Confidence Interval (CI): 1.01-2.76); their cognitive level, including having a high perceived risk of COVID-19 infection (OR = 3.06, 95% CI: 1.73-5.43) or the perception of low vaccine safety (OR = 3.08, 95% CI: 1.545- 6.145); anxiety (OR = 3.43, 95% CI: 1.96-5.99); and no previous influenza vaccination (OR = 1.82, 95% CI: 1.13-2.93); whereas those for older individuals in the community were comorbid chronic diseases (OR = 3.13, 95% CI: 1.11- 8.78) and community workers not recommending the vaccine (OR = 8.223, 95% CI: 1.77-38.27). CONCLUSION: The proportion of older individuals in nursing homes who were hesitant to receive the COVID-19 vaccine was significantly higher than for older individuals in the community. Targeted measures should be implemented to reduce vaccine hesitancy and improve vaccination rates in response to the special environment of nursing homes and the characteristics of this population.

Cost-Effectiveness of Elbasvir/Grazoprevir for the Treatment of Chronic Hepatitis C: A Systematic Review.

Objective: This study aims to systematically review recent economic evaluations of elbasvir/grazoprevir (EBR/GZR) for chronic hepatitis C (CHC), to critically appraise the reporting quality and to summarize the results. Methods: A literature search was undertaken using Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Library, EconLit, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Data, and Chongqing VIP to identify original articles containing economic evaluations of EBR/GZR for CHC published between 1 January 2000 and 31 December 2020. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards statement was used to assess the quality of reporting of the articles. Results: Of 93 articles identified, 13 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. These studies were conducted in 4 countries, and 8 active interventions were assessed. The target population was patients infected with CHC genotype 1 infection in all studies. Eight out of 13 studies that compared EBR/GZR vs. other direct antiviral agents suggested that EBR/GZR was generally more cost-effective or dominant than daclatasvir/asunaprevir (DCV/ASV), sofosbuvir/velpatasvir (SOF/VEL), ledipasvir/sofosbuvir (LDV/SOF), ombitasvir/paritaprevir/ritonavir + dasabuvir (3D) but not more cost-effective than glecaprevir/pibrentasvir (GLE/PIB). Two studies from China and one study from the USA that compared EBR/GZR vs. pegylated interferon and ribavirin (PegIFN/RBV) consistently indicated that EBR/GZR was generally more cost-effective than PegIFN/RBV. One study from Italy compared EBR/GZR with SOF + PegIFN/RBV and suggested that EBR/GZR had a lower cost and higher effectiveness. One study from France and one study from the USA confirmed that compared with non-therapy for patients with chronic kidney disease, EBR/GZR was cost-effective at commonly accepted current standards. All included studies were of good quality of reporting, with an average score of 21.9 (range 19-23). Conclusion: EBR/GZR for CHC genotype 1 might be cost-effective or dominant compared with PegIFN/RBV and other direct antiviral agents (SOF/VEL, 3D, DCV/ASV, LDF/SOF) or non-therapy. However, under certain assumptions, EBR/GZR was not a cost-effective alternative for CHC patients vs. GLE/PIB.

Cost-Effectiveness of Sequential Denosumab/Zoledronic Acid Compared With Zoledronic Acid Monotherapy for Postmenopausal Osteoporotic Women in China.

Objective: The primary purpose of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of sequential denosumab/zoledronic acid versus zoledronic acid monotherapy for postmenopausal osteoporotic women in China. Methods: We updated and utilized a previously validated Markov microsimulation model to obtain the cost-effectiveness of two strategies for treating postmenopausal osteoporotic women. We compared the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) (US dollars [$] per quality-adjusted life year [QALY]) of sequential denosumab/zoledronic acid (i.e., biannual subcutaneous denosumab for 3 years followed by annual intravenous zoledronic acid for 3 years) with zoledronic acid monotherapy for 3 years in Chinese women with postmenopausal osteoporosis at ages 65, 70, 75, and 80 from the health care payer perspective. Our study's willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold was set to three times the value of China's per capita GDP in 2020 ($31,512). Results: The ICERs of sequential denosumab/zoledronic acid versus zoledronic acid monotherapy were $59,389/QALY, $23,821/QALY, $22,710/QALY, and $14,027/QALY at age 65, 70, 75, and 80 years, respectively. One-way sensitivity analyses showed that the most impactful parameter was the persistence rate of the medications. If the persistence rate of denosumab or zoledronic acid was increased by 10%, sequential denosumab/zoledronic acid would be cost-effective at age 65. In probabilistic sensitivity analyses, the probabilities of sequential denosumab/zoledronic being cost-effective compared to zoledronic acid monotherapy were approximately 29.3%, 68.7%, 86.1%, and 99.4% for ages 65, 70, 75, and 80 years, respectively, at the WTP threshold of $31,512/QALY. Conclusion: Among Chinese postmenopausal osteoporosis women over 70 years old, sequential denosumab/zoledronic acid was cost-effective compared with zoledronic acid monotherapy at the pre-determined WTP threshold.

Cost-Effectiveness of Sequential Teriparatide/Zoledronic Acid Compared With Zoledronic Acid Monotherapy for Postmenopausal Osteoporotic Women in China.

Objective: We aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of sequential teriparatide/zoledronic acid relative to zoledronic acid monotherapy for postmenopausal osteoporotic women in China. Methods: A previously validated Markov microsimulation model was updated to examine the cost-effectiveness of daily subcutaneous teriparatide for 2 years followed by annual intravenous zoledronic acid for 3 years (sequential teriparatide/zoledronic acid), compared with zoledronic acid monotherapy for 3 years in Chinese women with postmenopausal osteoporosis at ages 65, 70, 75, and 80 from the health care payer perspective. Results: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) (US dollars [$] per quality-adjusted life-year [QALY]) of sequential teriparatide/zoledronic acid vs. zoledronic acid monotherapy was $173,223/QALY at age 65 years, which was much higher than the pre-determined willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $ 31,512/QALY, and the results were similar at other ages. In one-way sensitivity analyses, the two most impactful parameters were the cost of teriparatide and the residual effects of the medications included in this study. Sequential teriparatide/zoledronic acid became cost-effective at age 80 with the cost of teriparatide reduced by 50%. Without the residual effect, the ICER increased to $257,982/QALY. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses shown that the probabilities of zoledronic acid monotherapy being cost-effective were 100% at a WTP of $31,512/QALY. Conclusions: Among Chinese women with postmenopausal osteoporosis, sequential teriparatide/zoledronic acid was not cost-effective unless the cost of teriparatide was reduced by 50% only for the participants over 80 years.

Which injected antiosteoporotic medication is worth paying for? A cost-effectiveness analysis of teriparatide, zoledronate, ibandronate, and denosumab for postmenopausal osteoporotic women in China.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of four injected antiosteoporotic medications including teriparatide, zoledronate, ibandronate, and denosumab for postmenopausal osteoporotic women in China. METHODS: A Markov microsimulation model was used to compare the cost-effectiveness of the four drugs above in Chinese postmenopausal osteoporotic women with no fracture history of hip, vertebral, or wrist at various ages (65, 70, 75, and 80) of therapy initiation from the health care payer perspective. RESULTS: Denosumab was dominant (ie, lower costs and greater quality-adjusted life-years [QALYs]) compared with other strategies at all ages studied. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of zoledronate or ibandronate versus no treatment were $4,482.88/ QALYs or $11,378/QALYs, respectively, at age 65 years, and the results at other ages were similar. In contrast, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of teriparatide strategy compared with no treatment exceeded the pre-determined threshold of a willingness-to-pay of $31,512/QALY regardless of the adoption of the patient assistance program at all ages studied, and a threshold analysis showed that teriparatide without patient assistance program became cost-effective when the annual drug cost is decreased to $1,644.87 (current cost: $8,764.65). The cost-effectiveness decision did not change in most of the one-way sensitivity analyses. A scenario analysis considering no offset effect of denosumab showed that zoledronate had the potential to become the optimal option relative to denosumab. In probabilistic sensitivity analyses, the probabilities of denosumab being cost-effective compared with other strategies were 100% at a willingness-to-pay of $31,512/QALY. CONCLUSIONS: Among postmenopausal osteoporotic women in China, denosumab therapy is cost-effective at all ages examined from the health care payer perspective, compared with teriparatide, zoledronate, or ibandronate. This study will help clinicians and policymakers make better decisions about the relative economic value of osteoporosis treatments in China.

Design and assessment of novel artificial anal sphincter with adaptive transcutaneous energy transfer system.

This paper presents the in vitro assessment of a novel elastic scaling artificial anal sphincter system (ES-AASS) with an adaptive transcutaneous energy transfer system (TETS) for treatment of severe faecal incontinence (FI). The proposed adaptive TETS has a phase control, which can maintain the output voltage at ∼7 V across the full range of the coupling coefficient variation (from 0.09-0.31) during the whole process of charging with a phase shift of 177.5° to 79.1°. A maximum surface temperature of 42.2 °C was measured above the secondary coil during an energy transmission of 3.5 W in air. The specific absorption rate (SAR) and current density analysis of the biological three-layers structure, including the skin, fat and muscle) surrounding the coil pair were analysed and the results of simulation analysis showed that the value of SAR and current density were very small at any given transmission condition compared with the basic restrictions of the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP). In conclusion, in vitro experimental results showed that the ES-AASS can control simulated faecal behaviour effectively and the performance of TETS was validated.