Effectiveness of acceptance and commitment therapy-based interventions for improving the psychological health of parents of children with special health care needs: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the effectiveness of ACT-based interventions on improving the mental health of parents of children with SHCN compared to active/inactive controls and to investigate the characteristics/components of the effective interventions in the included studies. METHODS: Eight databases were searched from inception to 14 February 2023. We included all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of ACT-based interventions for parents of children with SHCN published in English or Chinese journals and dissertations reporting at least one parental mental health outcome postintervention. RESULTS: Fourteen RCTs were included. The results indicated significant improvements of ACT-based interventions in the stress (Hedges' g = -0.36), depressive symptoms (g = -0.32), anxiety (g = -0.29), distress (g = -0.29), psychological flexibility (g = 0.51), mindful awareness/mindfulness abilities (g = 0.41), and confidence/self-efficacy (g = 0.30) of parents, as well as in the emotional and behavioural problems (EBP; g = -0.39) of their children with SHCN postintervention, with moderate to high certainty of evidence. Furthermore, the optimal components of ACT-based interventions, including the intervention approaches (ACT combined with another parenting technique/program), active participants (only involving parents), delivery mode (in-person) and format (group-based format), and desirable number of sessions (4-8 sessions), were identified to inform the design of future interventions/studies. CONCLUSION: This review highlights the positive effects of ACT-based interventions on mental health, psychological flexibility, mindful awareness/mindfulness abilities, and confidence/self-efficacy in parents and EBP in children with SHCN. Since group-based ACT combined with a parenting technique/program was identified as the optimal effective strategy, its effects could be further examined in larger-scale RCTs with parents and children with SHCN with diverse ethnic and sociodemographic characteristics.

First-line systemic treatment strategies for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: A cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: Oral multikinase inhibitors and immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are effective for treating advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (aHCC) but may increase cost. This study compared the cost-effectiveness of oral multikinase inhibitors and ICIs in the first-line treatment of patients with aHCC. METHODS: A three-state Markov model was established to study the cost-effectiveness of drug treatment from the perspective of Chinese payers. The key outcomes in this study were total cost, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). RESULTS: The total costs and QALYs of sorafenib, sunitinib, donafenib, lenvatinib, sorafenib plus erlotinib, linifanib, brivanib, sintilimab plus IBI305, and atezolizumab plus bevacizumab were $9070 and 0.25, $9362 and 0.78, $33,814 and 0.45, $49,120 and 0.83, $63,064 and 0.81, $74,814 and 0.82, $81,995 and 0.82, $74083 and 0.85, and $104,188 and 0.84, respectively. The drug regimen with the lowest ICER was sunitinib ($551 per QALY), followed by lenvatinib ($68,869 per QALY). For oral multikinase inhibitors, the ICER of lenvatinib, sorafenib plus erlotinib, linifanib and brivanib compared with sunitinib was $779576, $1534,347, $1768,971, and $1963,064, respectively. For ICIs, sintilimab plus IBI305 is more cost effective than atezolizumab plus bevacizumab. The model was most sensitive to the price of sorafenib, the utility of PD, and the price of second-line drugs. CONCLUSION: For oral multikinase inhibitors, the order of possible treatment options is sunitinib > lenvatinib > sorafenib plus erlotinib > linifanib > brivanib > donafenib. For ICIs, the order of possible treatment options is sintilimab plus IBI305 > atezolizumab plus bevacizumab.

Comparative efficacy of various CHIs combined with western medicine for non-small cell lung cancer: A bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Background: Given the limitations of Western medicine (WM) for the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and the wide exploration of Chinese herbal injections (CHIs), systematically evaluate the efficacy of Various CHIs Combined with WM for Non-small Cell Lung Cancer. In this study, we performed a network meta-analysis to evaluate the comparative efficacy of 16 CHIs combined with WM regimens for the treatment of NSCLC. Methods: Literature databases were searched from their inception to November 2021, and all randomized control trials (RCTs) involving NSCLC patients treated with a combination of Chinese and WM were retrieved. Outcomes, including disease control rate, survival quality score, incidence of gastrointestinal adverse reactions, incidence of leukopenia, and incidence of thrombocytopenia, were analyzed using RevMan (5.3), Stata17, and R software. Surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) probability values were calculated to rank the treatments examined, and clustering analysis was used to compare the effects of CHIs on different outcomes. Results: A total of 389 studies involving 31,263 patients and 16 CHIs were included. The 16 CHIs were: Aidi injection (ADI), Huachansu injection (HCSI), oil of Ophiopogon injection (OOMI), disodium cantharidinate and vitamin B6 injection (DCI), Shenfu injection (SFI), Shenmai injection (SMI), Shenqi Fuzheng injection (SQFZI), Chansu injection (CSI), Delisheng injection (DLSI), Fufang Kushen injection (FFKSI), Huangqi injection (HQI), Kangai injection (KAI), Kanglaite injection (KLTI), Shengmai injection (SI), Xiangguduotang injection (XGDTI), and Xiaoaiping injection (XAPI). The results of the network meta-analysis showed that, with WM treatment as a co-intervention, CSI was most likely to improve the disease control rate (SUCRA = 80.90%), HQI had the highest probability of being the best option for improving the survival quality score (SUCRA = 82.60%), DCI had the highest probability of reducing the incidence of gastrointestinal adverse reactions (SUCRA = 85.50%), HCSI + WM had the highest probability of reducing the incidence of thrombocytopenia (SUCRA = 91.30%), while SMI had the highest probability of reducing the incidence of leukopenia (SUCRA = 79.10%). Conclusion: CHIs combined with WM is proved to be more effective than WM alone, which may be beneficial to NSCLC patients. SMI + WM and DCI + WM are most likely the optimal CHI to improve disease control rates, survival quality score, and reduce adverse effects. This study has limitations; therefore, higher quality RCTs and real-world evidence are required to support our conclusions.