Kashif Mohd Siddiqui, S. Attri, Massimo Orlando, F. Lelli, Valeria Maida, Dominique Damais-Thabut
{"title":"利福昔明-α与乳果糖治疗复发性肝性脑病的成本-效果:荟萃分析","authors":"Kashif Mohd Siddiqui, S. Attri, Massimo Orlando, F. Lelli, Valeria Maida, Dominique Damais-Thabut","doi":"10.1155/2022/1298703","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background. Hepatic encephalopathy (HE) is a frequent and debilitating complication of liver disease. Treatments include lactulose and rifaximin-α. The objective of this literature review and meta-analysis was to assess the overall cost-effectiveness of rifaximin-α in HE treatment. Methods. Electronic database searches were conducted in November 2020 to identify cost-effectiveness studies comparing rifaximin-α with other interventions in HE, published in English. Incremental net benefit (INB) was calculated for each study using difference in effectiveness, difference in costs, and the willingness-to-pay threshold, or gross domestic product per capita for each country, and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were constructed. Costs were standardised to 2019 US$. An intervention was considered cost-effective if the INB was positive. Meta-analysis was used to pool calculated INB across studies, using a fixed-effects model if there was no heterogeneity or a random-effects model. Results. Eleven studies were included in the meta-analysis. For rifaximin-α plus lactulose in the second-line setting, the pooled INB was estimated at $20,156 (95% CI: $13,593-$29,887) versus lactulose monotherapy. For rifaximin-α monotherapy in the first-line setting, the pooled INB was $4834 (95% CI: $1601-$14,596) versus lactulose monotherapy. Due to lack of available data, meta-analyses were not possible for rifaximin-α added to lactulose therapy versus lactulose monotherapy in the first-line setting or for rifaximin-α as salvage therapy in the second-line setting. Conclusions. Rifaximin-α as an add-on treatment to lactulose in the second-line setting or as monotherapy in the first-line setting would be a cost-effective treatment for HE compared with lactulose monotherapy.","PeriodicalId":12480,"journal":{"name":"GastroHep","volume":"37 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Cost-Effectiveness of Rifaximin-α versus Lactulose for the Treatment of Recurrent Episodes of Overt Hepatic Encephalopathy: A Meta-Analysis\",\"authors\":\"Kashif Mohd Siddiqui, S. Attri, Massimo Orlando, F. Lelli, Valeria Maida, Dominique Damais-Thabut\",\"doi\":\"10.1155/2022/1298703\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background. Hepatic encephalopathy (HE) is a frequent and debilitating complication of liver disease. Treatments include lactulose and rifaximin-α. The objective of this literature review and meta-analysis was to assess the overall cost-effectiveness of rifaximin-α in HE treatment. Methods. Electronic database searches were conducted in November 2020 to identify cost-effectiveness studies comparing rifaximin-α with other interventions in HE, published in English. Incremental net benefit (INB) was calculated for each study using difference in effectiveness, difference in costs, and the willingness-to-pay threshold, or gross domestic product per capita for each country, and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were constructed. Costs were standardised to 2019 US$. An intervention was considered cost-effective if the INB was positive. Meta-analysis was used to pool calculated INB across studies, using a fixed-effects model if there was no heterogeneity or a random-effects model. Results. Eleven studies were included in the meta-analysis. For rifaximin-α plus lactulose in the second-line setting, the pooled INB was estimated at $20,156 (95% CI: $13,593-$29,887) versus lactulose monotherapy. For rifaximin-α monotherapy in the first-line setting, the pooled INB was $4834 (95% CI: $1601-$14,596) versus lactulose monotherapy. Due to lack of available data, meta-analyses were not possible for rifaximin-α added to lactulose therapy versus lactulose monotherapy in the first-line setting or for rifaximin-α as salvage therapy in the second-line setting. Conclusions. Rifaximin-α as an add-on treatment to lactulose in the second-line setting or as monotherapy in the first-line setting would be a cost-effective treatment for HE compared with lactulose monotherapy.\",\"PeriodicalId\":12480,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"GastroHep\",\"volume\":\"37 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-11-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"GastroHep\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/1298703\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"GastroHep","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/1298703","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Cost-Effectiveness of Rifaximin-α versus Lactulose for the Treatment of Recurrent Episodes of Overt Hepatic Encephalopathy: A Meta-Analysis
Background. Hepatic encephalopathy (HE) is a frequent and debilitating complication of liver disease. Treatments include lactulose and rifaximin-α. The objective of this literature review and meta-analysis was to assess the overall cost-effectiveness of rifaximin-α in HE treatment. Methods. Electronic database searches were conducted in November 2020 to identify cost-effectiveness studies comparing rifaximin-α with other interventions in HE, published in English. Incremental net benefit (INB) was calculated for each study using difference in effectiveness, difference in costs, and the willingness-to-pay threshold, or gross domestic product per capita for each country, and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were constructed. Costs were standardised to 2019 US$. An intervention was considered cost-effective if the INB was positive. Meta-analysis was used to pool calculated INB across studies, using a fixed-effects model if there was no heterogeneity or a random-effects model. Results. Eleven studies were included in the meta-analysis. For rifaximin-α plus lactulose in the second-line setting, the pooled INB was estimated at $20,156 (95% CI: $13,593-$29,887) versus lactulose monotherapy. For rifaximin-α monotherapy in the first-line setting, the pooled INB was $4834 (95% CI: $1601-$14,596) versus lactulose monotherapy. Due to lack of available data, meta-analyses were not possible for rifaximin-α added to lactulose therapy versus lactulose monotherapy in the first-line setting or for rifaximin-α as salvage therapy in the second-line setting. Conclusions. Rifaximin-α as an add-on treatment to lactulose in the second-line setting or as monotherapy in the first-line setting would be a cost-effective treatment for HE compared with lactulose monotherapy.