Exploring the application of health economics in clinical practice guidelines: A case study of breast cancer

Yashi Liu, Zixuan Wang, Mei Lu, Liying Geng, Jing Peng, Linjie Zhou, Hongchao Li
{"title":"Exploring the application of health economics in clinical practice guidelines: A case study of breast cancer","authors":"Yashi Liu, Zixuan Wang, Mei Lu, Liying Geng, Jing Peng, Linjie Zhou, Hongchao Li","doi":"10.54844/hd.2024.0013","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: Besides safety and efficacy evidence, economic evidence is a crucial consideration in forming recommendations \nfor clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). However, the extent to which economic evidence is utilized in Chinese CPGs remains \nunclear. Our study aims to systematically analyze the application of economic evidence in CPGs, providing insights for future \nguideline formulation and updates. \nMethods: A systematic search was conducted for relevant breast cancer CPGs published from 2017 to 2023, along with breast \ncancer pharmacoeconomic evaluation literature from 2015 to 2017 in China. Using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & \nEvaluation Instrument II (AGREE II) to select the guideline with the highest quality score and analyze the alignment between the \nrecommendations in the guideline and the published pharmacoeconomic evaluation results. \nResults: 30 breast cancer CPGs and 59 breast cancer pharmacoeconomic evaluation studies were included. The CSCO \nguidelines received the highest quality score. Among the included pharmacoeconomic evaluation studies, 25 were mentioned \nin the guideline recommendations, but economic evidence from 15 studies did not align with the guideline recommendations. \nConclusion: Currently, economic evidence is seldom considered in published breast cancer CPGs in China. In future guideline \nformulation and updates, the involvement of health economists should be prioritized to enhance and guide the recommendations \nin the guidelines. \nKey words: clinical practice guidelines, health economic, cost-effectiveness, breast cancer","PeriodicalId":430023,"journal":{"name":"Health Decision","volume":"6 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Decision","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.54844/hd.2024.0013","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Besides safety and efficacy evidence, economic evidence is a crucial consideration in forming recommendations for clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). However, the extent to which economic evidence is utilized in Chinese CPGs remains unclear. Our study aims to systematically analyze the application of economic evidence in CPGs, providing insights for future guideline formulation and updates. Methods: A systematic search was conducted for relevant breast cancer CPGs published from 2017 to 2023, along with breast cancer pharmacoeconomic evaluation literature from 2015 to 2017 in China. Using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation Instrument II (AGREE II) to select the guideline with the highest quality score and analyze the alignment between the recommendations in the guideline and the published pharmacoeconomic evaluation results. Results: 30 breast cancer CPGs and 59 breast cancer pharmacoeconomic evaluation studies were included. The CSCO guidelines received the highest quality score. Among the included pharmacoeconomic evaluation studies, 25 were mentioned in the guideline recommendations, but economic evidence from 15 studies did not align with the guideline recommendations. Conclusion: Currently, economic evidence is seldom considered in published breast cancer CPGs in China. In future guideline formulation and updates, the involvement of health economists should be prioritized to enhance and guide the recommendations in the guidelines. Key words: clinical practice guidelines, health economic, cost-effectiveness, breast cancer
探索卫生经济学在临床实践指南中的应用:乳腺癌案例研究
目的:除安全性和有效性证据外,经济学证据也是临床实践指南(CPG)形成建议时的一个重要考虑因素。然而,经济学证据在中国临床实践指南中的应用程度尚不明确。我们的研究旨在系统分析经济学证据在临床实践指南中的应用,为未来指南的制定和更新提供参考。研究方法系统检索了中国从 2017 年至 2023 年出版的相关乳腺癌 CPG,以及 2015 年至 2017 年的乳腺癌药物经济学评价文献。使用研究与评价指南评估工具 II(AGREE II)选择质量得分最高的指南,并分析指南中的建议与已发表的药物经济学评价结果之间的一致性。结果如下共纳入 30 份乳腺癌 CPG 和 59 项乳腺癌药物经济学评估研究。CSCO 指南的质量得分最高。在纳入的药物经济学评价研究中,25 项研究在指南建议中被提及,但 15 项研究的经济学证据与指南建议不一致。结论:目前,中国已发布的乳腺癌CPG很少考虑经济学证据。在未来的指南制定和更新中,应优先考虑卫生经济学家的参与,以加强和指导指南中的建议。关键词:临床实践指南、卫生经济学、成本效益、乳腺癌
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信