The cost-effectiveness of bivalent, quadrivalent, and nine-valent HPV vaccination in Asia: a systematic review.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to systematically review the cost-effectiveness of HPV vaccination in Asia. METHODS: We performed a systematic review of papers indexed in PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science covering the period from 1 January 2000 to 13 August 2020. RESULTS: Sixteen studies were included in the review. Half of them (8 studies) evaluated the cost-effectiveness of HPV vaccination in high-income countries and regions (HICs) while the other eight studies were set in low- and middle-income countries and regions (LMICs). In HICs, the implementation of bivalent, quadrivalent and nine-valent HPV vaccination was all shown to be cost-effective. Most studies (7/8) also showed that it was cost-effective to implement bivalent, quadrivalent, and nine-valent HPV vaccines in LMICs. However, one study concluded that it was not cost-effective to implement bivalent HPV vaccination in Thailand. CONCLUSION: In general, the implementation of bivalent, quadrivalent and nine-valent HPV vaccination for adolescent girls was cost-effective in both high-income countries and regions and low- and middle-income countries and regions in Asia. Policy makers in HICs could consider expanding the target vaccinated population, while for LMICs it is essential to reduce HPV vaccine price to a level at which the implementation of HPV vaccination is cost-effective.

Crizotinib versus chemotherapy: a real-world cost-effectiveness study in China.

Aim: To assess the cost-effectiveness of crizotinib verses platinum-based doublet chemotherapy as the first-line treatment for anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in the real-world setting. Methods: Data from 163 advanced ALK positive NSCLC patients were collected from West China Hospital, Sichuan University (Chengdu, China). They were categorized into two groups as treated with crizotinib (n = 83) or chemotherapy (n = 80) as a first-line therapy. The progression-free survival (PFS) as the primary clinical outcome, and the direct medical costs were collected from hospital information systems. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated with costs, quality-adjusted life-years, as well as the costs discounted at 3% annually. Additionally, two different kinds of medical insurance (MI) for pharma-economic assessment were considered. Results: Crizotinib improved PFS versus chemotherapy in ALK positive patients (median PFS 19.67 m vs 5.47 m; p < 0.001). Moreover, crizotinib obtained an ICER of US$36,285.39 before the end of 2016, when crizotinib, pemetrexed and anti-angiogenesis drugs were not MI covered. This is more than the willingness to pay threshold (three-times of gross domestic product per capita in mainland China or Sichuan Province). However, ICER was US$7321.16, which is less than willingness to pay, when crizotinib and all chemotherapy drugs were covered by MI from the end of 2016. Sensitivity analysis demonstrated a 99.7% probability for crizotinib to be more cost-effective than chemotherapy, when crizotinib and all anticancer drugs were MI covered. One-way sensitivity analysis for the reimbursement ratio of crizotinib indicated that cost-effective tendency for crizotinib increased as reimbursement ratio increased. Conclusion: Crizotinib could be an effective, and cost-effective first-line treatment for ALK positive advanced NSCLC with the MI coverage currently available in Chengdu, Sichuan Province, China.

Comparative cost analysis of three different anesthesia methods in gynecological laparoscopic surgery.

In the current study, we assessed and evaluated the costs and benefits of three popular methods of general anesthesia practiced in our department for gynecological laparoscopic surgery in recent years. Sixty adult female patients who underwent elective gynecological laparoscopic surgery under general anesthesia were randomly divided into three groups: group V, group I and group C. In group V, anesthesia was induced intravenously with midazolam, remifentanil, propofol and vecuronium, and maintained with continuous infusion of propofol and remifentanil. In group I, anesthesia was intravenously induced with midazolam, fentanyl, propofol and vecuronium, and maintained with inhaled isoflurane and intravenous bonus of fentanyl. In group C, anesthesia was induced as in group I, but maintained with isoflurane inhalation combined with propofolremifentanil infusion. All patients received vecuronium for muscle relaxation. Perioperative incidences of complications and total anesthesia costs for patients in all groups were recorded. In addition, postoperative satisfaction of the patients was also noted, and similar outcomes of the satisfaction were reported in all 60 patients. Although there was no statistical significance among groups, the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting were higher in group C, and the rates of shivering and the needs for analgesics were higher in group V. Anesthesia costs in group I were the lowest. Therefore, it is concluded that the costs of anesthesia induced with midazolam, fentanyl, propofol, vecuronium, and maintained with isoflurane, fentanyl and vecuronium are cheapest, and there is no significant difference in patients' satisfaction and safety among the three above-mentioned methods of anesthesia in our department.