A Systematic Review of Health Economics Research on the Treatment of Liver Cancer in China
1. Finance Office, Guangxi University of Chinese Medicine, Nanning 530222, China
2. Department of Medicine, Faculty of Chinese Medicine Science, Guangxi University of Chinese Medicine, Nanning 530222, China
3. School of Basic Medicine, Guangxi University of Chinese Medicine, Nanning 530222, China
| Abstract: | Objective: To systematically evaluate the health economics research status of the treatment of liver cancer in Chinese groups. Methods: Taking "China", "liver cancer", "treatment" and "health economics evaluation" as the theme headings, the computer searched CNKI, WanFang data, VIP, PubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library and Web of Science to collect health economics research literature on the treatment of liver cancer in China, and the search period was all established until October 1, 2022. Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion based on screening criteria; The risk of bias of each study was evaluated, and the research objects, evaluation models, evaluation methods, research perspectives, etc. were qualitatively analyzed; For comparison, medical costs are converted and discounted at a discount rate of 5% to the RMB level in 2021; For studies that evaluated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), further statistics were performed to analyze whether it had a cost effect. Results: A total of 28 studies were included, including 14 Chinese and 14 English studies. 60.7% of the study subjects were patients with intermediate and advanced liver cancer, 32.1% were patients with early and intermediate liver cancer, 7.1% were not limited to staging, and 10.7% of the studies evaluated the traditional Chinese medicine program. 92.9% of studies used cost-effect analysis and 7.1% used least-cost analysis; 46.4% (13/28) of studies used the Markov model, 7.1% used the partition survival model, and 46.4% did not establish an economic model; In the study reporting ICER, the median incremental cost was ¥211,611.07, the median ICER was ¥554,915.14, and the median quality-adjusted life years were 0.875 QALYs. Conclusion: At present, the treatment of liver cancer in China is mainly surgery, intervention, radiotherapy and chemotherapy, and there are still limitations of less consideration of indirect medical costs, and the evaluation of traditional Chinese medicine programs may be a hot research direction. |
| Keywords: | Liver Cancer; Treat; Health Economics; Systematic Reviews |
| DOI: | 10.57237/j.cmf.2023.04.001 |
View:
Downloads:
Received: 11 August 2023
Accepted: 7 October 2023
Published Online: 9 October 2023
Funding
| 1. | 广西中医药大学赛恩斯新医药学院创新团队项目 (编号: 2022CX004) |
References
| [1] | 应倩, 汪媛. 肝癌流行现况和趋势分析 [J]. 中国肿瘤, 2020, 29(3): 185-191. |
| [2] | 石菊芳, 石春雷, 岳馨培, 等. 1996—2014年中国恶性肿瘤经济负担的系统评价 [J]. 中华肿瘤杂志, 2016, 38(12): 929-941. |
| [3] | 涂刘军. 某三甲医院1404例肝癌患者住院费用影响因素分析 [J]. 中国病案, 2022, 23(4): 51-54. |
| [4] | Cao M D, Liu C C, Wang H, et al. The population-level economic burden of liver cancer in China, 2019–2030: prevalence-based estimations from a societal perspective [J]. Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation, 2022, 20(1): 1-11. |
| [5] | Shi J F, Cao M, Wang Y, et al. Is it possible to halve the incidence of liver cancer in China by 2050? [J]. International Journal of Cancer, 2021, 148(5): 1051-1065. |
| [6] | 曹梦迪, 王红, 石菊芳, 等. 中国人群肝癌疾病负担: 多数据源证据更新整合分析 [J]. 中华流行病学杂志, 2020, 41(11): 1848-1858. |
| [7] | Yuen S C, Amaefule A Q, Kim H H, et al. A Systematic Review of Cost-Effectiveness Analyses for Hepatocellular Carcinoma Treatment [J]. Pharmaco Economics-Open, 2021: 1-11. |
| [8] | 吕兰婷, 王丽娟. 中国溃疡性结肠炎干预的卫生经济学评价研究进展 [J]. 中国药物经济学, 2019, 14(1): 114-121. |
| [9] | 赵晓峰. 针刺治疗脑卒中的卫生经济学研究思路与方法 [J]. 天津中医药大学学报, 2008, 27(3): 223-225. |
| [10] | 李娟. 急性脑梗死中西医结合治疗方案的卫生经济学评价 [D]. 湖北中医药大学, 2019. |
| [11] | Yaremko H L, Locke G E, Chow R, et al. Cost minimization analysis of hypofractionated radiotherapy [J]. Current Oncology, 2021, 28(1): 716-725. |
| [12] | Cookson R, Mirelman A J, Griffin S, et al. Using cost-effectiveness analysis to address health equity concerns [J]. Value in Health, 2017, 20(2): 206-212. |
| [13] | Joish V N, Oderda G M. Cost-utility analysis and quality adjusted life years [J]. Journal of pain & palliative care pharmacotherapy, 2005, 19(1): 57-61. |
| [14] | Moran D, Wu A W, Connors C, et al. Cost-benefit analysis of a support program for nursing staff [J]. Journal of Patient Safety, 2020, 16(4): e250-e254. |
| [15] | Couri T, Pillai A. Goals and targets for personalized therapy for HCC [J]. Hepatology international, 2019, 13(2): 125-137. |
| [16] | Llovet J M, Fuster J, Bruix J. The Barcelona approach: diagnosis, staging, and treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma [J]. Liver transplantation, 2004, 10(S2): S115-S120. |
| [17] | Tellapuri S, Sutphin P D, Beg M S, et al. Staging systems of hepatocellular carcinoma: a review [J]. Indian Journal of Gastroenterology, 2018, 37(6): 481-491. |
| [18] | Bertram MY, Lauer JA, Stenberg K, Edejer TTT. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Interventions for Priority Setting in the Health System: An Update From WHO CHOICE. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2021; 10(11): 673-677. |
| [19] | Murray C J L, Evans D B, Acharya A, et al. Development of WHO guidelines on generalized cost-effectiveness analysis [J]. Health economics, 2000, 9(3): 235-251. |
| [20] | 中华人民共和国2021年国民经济和社会发展统计公报 [J]. 中国统计, 2022(3): 9-26. |
| [21] | Johan L. Severens, Richard J. Milne, 陶立波. 卫生经济学评价中健康产出结果的贴现问题 [J]. 中国药物经济学, 2009(1): 76-80. |
| [22] | Hillman AL, Kim MS. Economic decision making in healthcare. A standard approach to discounting health outcomes [J]. Pharmaco Economics, 1995, (7): 198-205. |
| [23] | 中华人民共和国国家统计局. 中国统计年鉴 [M]. 北京: 中国统计出版社, 2021. |
| [24] | Leung H W C, Liu C F, Chan A L F. Cost-effectiveness of sorafenib versus SBRT for unresectable advanced hepatocellular carcinoma [J]. Radiation Oncology, 2016, 11(1): 1-9. |
| [25] | Leung H W C, Chan A L F. Cost-utility of stereotactic radiation therapy versus proton beam therapy for inoperable advanced hepatocellular carcinoma [J]. Oncotarget, 2017, 8(43): 75568. |
| [26] | Zhao R C, Zhou J, Wei Y G, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of transcatheter arterial chemoembolization with or without sorafenib for the treatment of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma [J]. Hepatobiliary & Pancreatic Diseases International, 2017, 16(5): 493-498. |
| [27] | Chen S, Peng Z, Wei M, et al. Sorafenib versus Transarterial chemoembolization for advanced-stage hepatocellular carcinoma: a cost-effectiveness analysis [J]. BMC cancer, 2018, 18(1): 1-12. |
| [28] | Qin S, Kruger E, Tan S C, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of FOLFOX4 and sorafenib for the treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma in China [J]. Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation, 2018, 16(1): 1-9. |
| [29] | Liao W, Huang J, Hutton D, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of cabozantinib as second-line therapy in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma [J]. Liver International, 2019, 39(12): 2408-2416. |
| [30] | Zhao H, Meng Y, Zhai X, et al. Comparable effects of Jiedu Granule, a compound Chinese herbal medicine, and sorafenib for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: A prospective multicenter cohort study [J]. Journal of Integrative Medicine, 2020, 18(4): 319-325. |
| [31] | Wen F, Zheng H, Zhang P, et al. Atezolizumab and bevacizumab combination compared with sorafenib as the first-line systemic treatment for patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: A cost-effectiveness analysis in China and the United states [J]. Liver International, 2021, 41(5): 1097-1104. |
| [32] | Jiao X L, Li S C, Hao L, et al. Cost-benefit analysis of hepatic resection, radiofrequency ablation and liver transplantation in small hepatocellular carcinoma [J]. Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research, 2022, 22(2): 307-313. |
| [33] | Meng R, Cao Y, Zhou T, Hu H, Qiu Y. The Cost Effectiveness of Donafenib Compared With Sorafenib for the First-Line Treatment of Unresectable or Metastatic Hepatocellular Carcinoma in China. Front Public Health. 2022; 10: 794131. |
| [34] | Peng Y, Zeng X, Peng L, Liu Q, Yi L, Luo X, Li S, Wang L, Qin S, Wan X, Tan C. Sintilimab Plus Bevacizumab Biosimilar Versus Sorafenib as First-Line Treatment for Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis. Front Pharmacol. 2022; 13: 778505. |
| [35] | Zhang H, Zeng X, Peng Y, Tan C, Wan X. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Hepatic Arterial Infusion Chemotherapy of Infusional Fluorouracil, Leucovorin, and Oxaliplatin Versus Transarterial Chemoembolization in Patients With Large Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma. Front Pharmacol. 2022; 13: 849189. |
| [36] | Zhou T, Cao Y, Wang X, et al. Economic Evaluation of Sintilimab Plus Bevacizumab Versus Sorafenib as a First-line Treatment for Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma [J]. Advances in Therapy, 2022, 39(5): 2165-2177. |
| [37] | Lai Y, Li K, Li J, et al. Cost-effectiveness of navigated radiofrequency ablation for hepatocellular carcinoma in China [J]. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 2014, 30(4): 400-408. |
| [38] | 赖延锦. 四种阿片类镇痛药治疗原发性肝癌疼痛患者的最小成本分析 [J]. 中国医药指南, 2018, 16(16): 50-51. |
| [39] | 谭兵, 吴府容, 康强强, 王勇. 不同中药注射剂辅助治疗肝癌的有效性与经济学评价 [J]. 中国医院用药评价与分析, 2013, 13(6): 494-496. |
| [40] | 王文辉, 段旭华, 李浩, 等. 经肝动脉化疗栓塞术中应用三氧化二砷载药微球与三氧化二砷碘化油治疗不可切除原发性肝癌的成本效益分析 [J]. 临床肝胆病杂志, 2021, 37(9): 2125-2129. |
| [41] | 刘勤, 周少波. 小肝癌射频消融与经腹腔镜切除治疗的近期疗效及成本效果分析 [J]. 中国普通外科杂志, 2020, 29(5): 596-602. |
| [42] | 李想, 龚彩云, 丁江华, 等. 巨块型肝癌的治疗方式及临床疗效与卫生经济学分析 [J]. 解放军医院管理杂志, 2015, 22(10): 983-985. |
| [43] | 保志军, 竺越, 于晓峰, 等. 中晚期原发性肝癌介入治疗的疗效和经济学评价 [J]. 肝脏, 2000(4): 221-223. |
| [44] | 曹阳. 复方斑蝥胶囊治疗原发性肝癌的有效性、安全性及经济性评价 [J]. 中国医院用药评价与分析, 2014, 14(8): 711-713. |
| [45] | 石凤翔, 李晓雯, 柳青, 等. 肝切除术与肝动脉化疗栓塞术治疗伴大血管侵犯肝细胞癌成本效果分析 [J]. 中华肿瘤防治杂志, 2019, 26(9): 603-608. |
| [46] | 李建坤, 徐卓, 王宁, 等. 载药微球经动脉导管化疗栓塞与手术切除治疗II b期原发性肝癌患者的有效性及安全性分析 [J]. 介入放射学杂志, 2019, 28(12): 1181-1184. |
| [47] | 熊琨, 陆勇, 沈兵, 等. 我国手术切除与射频消融治疗早期肝细胞癌的经济学评价 [J]. 中国卫生经济, 2019, 38(10): 72-75. |
| [48] | 赖延锦. 原发性肝癌疼痛患者四种给药方法的成本-效果分析 [J]. 中国当代医药, 2018, 25(4): 150-152. |
| [49] | 隋宾艳, 赵琨. 肝细胞癌患者术后辅助CIK细胞免疫治疗的成本效果分析 [J]. 卫生经济研究, 2018(10): 6-9. |
| [50] | 王晓辉, 王立博, 尹向岩. 丝裂霉素联合碘油经肝动脉介入栓塞治疗中晚期肝癌的有效性与经济学评价 [J]. 中西医结合肝病杂志, 2016, 26(6): 346-348. |
| [51] | 黄钦熊, 谭理连, 陶江涛. MR引导下射频消融治疗乏血供原发性肝癌的有效性及安全性 [J]. 医学影像学杂志, 2021, 31(7): 1204-1207. |
| [52] | Briggs A, Sculpher M. An introduction to Markov modelling for economic evaluation [J]. Pharmacoeconomics, 1998, 13(4): 397-409. |
| [53] | Xie D Y, Ren Z G, Zhou J, et al. Chinese clinical guidelines for the management of hepatocellular carcinoma: updates and insights. Hepatobiliary Surg Nutr. 2020; 9(4): 452–463. |
| [54] | Alghamdi M A, Amaro C P, Lee-Ying R, et al. Effect of sorafenib starting dose and dose intensity on survival in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: Results from a Canadian Multicenter Database [J]. Cancer medicine, 2020, 9(14): 4918-4928. |
| [55] | Morimoto M, Numata K, Kondo M, et al. Field practice study of half-dose sorafenib treatment on safety and efficacy for hepatocellular carcinoma: A propensity score analysis [J]. Hepatology Research, 2015, 45(3): 279-287. |
| [56] | 原发性肝癌诊疗指南 (2022年版) [J]. 肿瘤综合治疗电子杂志, 2022, 8(2): 16-53. |
| [57] | 陈立梅. 我国制药行业进口关税政策研究 [D]. 东北财经大学, 2022. |
| [58] | Prasad V, De Jesús K, Mailankody S. The high price of anticancer drugs: origins, implications, barriers, solutions [J]. Nature reviews Clinical oncology, 2017, 14(6): 381-390. |
| [59] | Zhang H, Zhu X, Wei H, et al. A phase I, randomized, double-blinded, single-dose study evaluating the pharmacokinetic equivalence of the biosimilar IBI305 and bevacizumab in healthy male subjects [J]. International Journal of Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, 2019, 57(3): 167. |
| [60] | Qi F, Zhao L, Zhou A, et al. The advantages of using traditional Chinese medicine as an adjunctive therapy in the whole course of cancer treatment instead of only terminal stage of cancer [J]. Bioscience trends, 2015, 9(1): 16-34. |
| [61] | Liu X L, Li M G, Wang X, et al. Effects of adjuvant traditional Chinese medicine therapy on long-term survival in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma [J]. Phytomedicine, 2019, 62: 152930. |
Join the Editorial Board
We invite active, qualified and high profile scientists and researchers to join as Editorial Board Members.
Join UsBecome a Reviewer
Scholars with a strong interest in reviewing are invited to join the reviewer panel to ensure the quality of the research to be published.
Join Us