Cost-Effectiveness of Rifaximin-α versus Lactulose for the Treatment of Recurrent Episodes of Overt Hepatic Encephalopathy: A Meta-Analysis

GastroHep Pub Date : 2022-11-21 DOI:10.1155/2022/1298703
Kashif Mohd Siddiqui, S. Attri, Massimo Orlando, F. Lelli, Valeria Maida, Dominique Damais-Thabut
{"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}
引用次数: 1

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.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
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
背景。肝性脑病(HE)是肝脏疾病中一种常见的衰弱性并发症。治疗包括乳果糖和利福昔明-α。本文献综述和荟萃分析的目的是评估利福昔明-α在HE治疗中的总体成本-效果。方法。电子数据库检索于2020年11月进行,以确定比较利福昔明-α与其他HE干预措施的成本效益研究,并以英文发表。使用有效性差异、成本差异、支付意愿阈值或每个国家的人均国内生产总值来计算每个研究的增量净效益(INB),并构建95%置信区间(CI)。成本标准化为2019年美元。如果INB为正值,则认为干预措施具有成本效益。荟萃分析用于汇总各研究计算的INB,如果没有异质性,则使用固定效应模型或随机效应模型。结果。荟萃分析纳入了11项研究。对于利福昔明-α +乳果糖二线治疗,与乳果糖单药治疗相比,合并INB估计为20,156美元(95% CI: 13,593- 29,887美元)。对于一线利福昔明-α单药治疗,与乳果糖单药治疗相比,合并INB为4834美元(95% CI: 1601- 14596美元)。由于缺乏可用的数据,无法对一线环境中添加利福昔明-α与乳果糖单药治疗或二线环境中利福昔明-α作为补救性治疗进行meta分析。结论。与乳果糖单药治疗相比,利福昔明-α作为乳果糖二线治疗的附加治疗或作为一线治疗的单药治疗将是一种具有成本效益的HE治疗方法。
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 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Hepatitis D Virus Status Among People With Hepatitis B Virus Infection: A Disconnect Between Guidelines and Practice The Use of Antibiotics for the Prophylaxis of Spontaneous Bacterial Peritonitis: A Retrospective Review and Quality Improvement Study Management of Antithrombotic Agents During Emergency Endoscopy for Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding: A Propensity Score Matching Analysis High Technical Success Rate of Endoscopic Balloon Dilatation Reduces Surgical Requirement for Patients With Stricturing Crohn’s Disease The Suitability of Stool Antigen Testing in the Detection of Helicobacter pylori in a Regional and Rural Area of Australia
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1