Background and Objective: Unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (uHCC) is the main histological subtype of liver cancer and causes a great disease burden in China. We aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of five first-line systemic treatments newly approved in the Chinese market for the treatment of uHCC, namely, sorafenib, lenvatinib, donafenib, sintilimab plus bevacizumab (D + A), and atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (T + A) from the perspective of China's healthcare system, to provide a basis for decision-making.Methods: We constructed a network meta-analysis of 4 clinical trials and used fractional polynomial models to indirectly compare the effectiveness of treatments. The partitioned survival model was used for cost-effectiveness analysis. Primary model outcomes included the costs in US dollars and health outcomes in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) under a willingness-to-pay threshold of $33,521 (3 times the per capita gross domestic product in China) per QALY. We performed deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses to investigate the robustness. To test the effect of active treatment duration on the conclusions, we performed a scenario analysis.Results: Compared with sorafenib, lenvatinib, donafenib, D + A, and T + A regimens, it yielded an increase of 0.25, 0.30, 0.95, and 1.46 life-years, respectively. Correspondingly, these four therapies yielded an additional 0.16, 0.19, 0.51, and 0.86 QALYs and all four ICERs, $40,667.92/QALY gained, $27,630.63/QALY gained, $51,877.36/QALY gained, and $130,508.44/QALY gained, were higher than $33,521 except for donafenib. T + A was the most effective treatment and donafenib was the most economical option. Sensitivity and scenario analysis results showed that the base-case analysis was highly reliable.Conclusion: Although combination therapy could greatly improve patients with uHCC survival benefits, under the current WTP, donafenib is still the most economical option.

Background: Previous studies have shown that intraoperative hypothermia was associated with higher risks of clinical adverse events, but we found otherwise from recent evidences. This study aims to synthesize the existing evidence evaluating safety of intraoperative hypothermia.Methods: Articles, reviews, ongoing trials and grey literatures were retrieved from PubMed, The Cochrane Library, Clinical Trails and CNKI (a Chinese national database) till February 2nd, 2019. Both randomized controlled trials and observational studies compared incidences of all sorts of intra- and post-operative consequences between hypothermia and normothermia were included. Researches comparing different warming systems were excluded. We also examined risks of hypothermia using lowered standards (35.5 °C and 35 °C) from a Chinese trial (ChiCTR-IPR-17011099).Results: A total of 9 RCT studies and 11 observational studies were included. RCT-synthesized results showed that intraoperative hypothermia was associated with higher risks of bleeding (MD = 131.90, 95%CI: 117.42, 146.38), surgical site infection (RD = 0.14, 95%CI: 0.06, 0.21) and shivering (RD = 0.32, 95%CI: 0.06, 0.58) but with no significant differences in duration of surgery, hospital stay or mortality. Observational study-synthesized evidences showed that intraoperative hypothermia did not result in higher risks in any of these adverse events. Results didn’t change even if the standard of hypothermia was lowered by 0.5–1.0 °C.Conclusions: The study indicates that the synthesized risks resulted by intra-operative hypothermia might be overestimated and the eligibility of 36 °C to define hypothermia is not sensitive enough. Given body-temperature protection has not been popularized in China, it is still critical to normalize the hypothermia prevention at this stage.

Objective: Results of CameL-sq has revealed the clinical benefits to patients with advanced squamous non-small-cell lung cancer (sq-NSCLC). This study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of camrelizumab plus chemotherapy to treat sq-NSCLC from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system.Methods: We used a partitioned survival model with a lifetime horizon to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of camrelizumab plus chemotherapy vs. chemotherapy in treating sq-NSCLC. Baseline characteristics of patients and key clinical data were extracted from CameL-sq. Costs and utilities were collected from the open-access database and published literature. Costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), life-years gained, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were chosen as economic outcome indicators. We also performed a sensitivity analysis, subgroup analysis, and scenario analysis to verify the stability of the basic analysis results and explore the results under different scenarios.Results: Combination therapy added 0.47 QALYS and 0.91 life-years with an incremental cost of $6,347.81 compared with chemotherapy, which had an ICER of $13,572 per QALY. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated that camrelizumab plus chemotherapy had a 37.8% probability of cost-effectiveness at a willingness-to-pay threshold (WTP) of 1 time GDP per capital. When WTP was set as 3 times GDP per capital, combination therapy had significant cost-effectiveness. Deterministic sensitivity analysis showed that cost of the best supportive care was the factor with the greatest influence. The subgroup analysis found that combination therapy was associated with cost-effectiveness in several subgroups, namely, patients with disease stage IIIB/IIIC and with PD-L1 tumor proportion score ≤ 1%. Scenario analysis showed that ICER was positively correlated with the price of camrelizumab.Conclusion: In this economic evaluation, camrelizumab plus chemotherapy was unlikely to be cost-effective compared with chemotherapy in the first line therapy of sq-NSCLC from a perspective of the Chinese healthcare system. Reducing the price of camrelizumab and tailoring treatments based on individual patient factors might improve the cost-effectiveness. Our findings may provide evidence for clinicians in making optimal decisions in general clinical practice.

Continuity of care is widely considered a principle of primary care that decreases healthcare utilization and mortality. However, the effect of continuity of care on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) for adult patients with hypertension remains unclear. To further evaluate the effect of continuity of care, we implemented a cohort study among hypertensive patients aged over 35 years (n = 1200) in six townships in Qianjiang District, Chongqing, China, between 2012 and 2014. The study ultimately included 1079 participants. The continuity of care index was calculated using claim-based longitudinal data obtained from hypertension follow-up service records. The baseline and endline survey-based data, tested by the SF-36 scale, were used to assess HRQoL. To control selection bias and examine the effect of continuity of care, a kernel-based propensity score matching difference-in-differences (DID) method was used. Additionally, descriptive statistics, chi-squared test, and Mann–Whitney nonparametric test were used to summarize characteristics, evaluate proportional differences, and analyze statistical differences, respectively. Our results showed that patients in the high continuity of care group presented greater improvement in both Physical Component Summary (PCS, DID = 5.192 ± 1.970, p < 0.001) and Mental Component Summary (MCS, DID = 7.900 ± 1.815, p = 0.008) than those in the low continuity of care group. Moreover, patients in the high continuity of care group showed significant improvement in physical functioning, role-physical, general health, role-emotional, and mental health. Our findings indicate that a long-term physician-patient relationship may improve HRQoL in patients with hypertension. However, more unified measurement tools are needed to evaluate continuity of care. Further studies should include more study settings.

Objectives: To compare the efficacy, safety and effects on quality of life of different ALK-inhibitors for global and Asian patients with advanced ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC).Methods: The included RCTs were identified through a systematic search of PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Clinical Trials.gov, and major cancer conferences. The assessment of progression-free survival (PFS), intracranial PFS, overall survival (OS), and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) was carried out using restricted mean survival time (RMST) model, fractional polynomial model and Royston-Parmar model. Time-invariant hazard ratio (HR) models were also used to validate and supplement the primary analysis. Objective response rate (ORR) and adverse events with any grade, grade 3–5 were assessed through a Bayesian network meta-analysis. The primary measures for OS, PFS, and PROs were HR and RMST. The odds ratio was the metric for evaluating safety, ORR, 12-month PFS rate, 24-month OS rate, and the 12-month non-deterioration rate of PROs. Subgroup analyses based on patient characteristics were performed.Results: A total of fourteen studies (ten for first-line, four for second-line) consisting of nine treatments (chemotherapy, crizotinib, alectinib [600mg BID], low-dose alectinib [300mg BID], brigatinib, ceritinib, ensartinib, envonalkib, and lorlatinib) were included. In the first-line setting, alectinib showed a significant advantage over crizotinib and had the longest OS among all ALK-inhibitors. Compared to crizotinib, lorlatinib had the best efficacy regarding PFS for global patients, followed closely by alectinib and brigatinib. For Asian patients, alectinib significantly improved PFS compared to other treatments. In second-line, alectinib had the highest PFS for patients pretreated with crizotinib, followed by brigatinib, ceritinib and chemotherapy. Alectinib, irrespective of the dose, was the safest first-line option, whereas lorlatinib, brigatinib, and ceritinib showed poorer safety profiles. Alectinib was also the safest ALK-inhibitor for crizotinib-resistant patients. Brigatinib had the best performance in terms of PROs.Conclusions: Considering both efficacy and safety, alectinib appears to be the preferable treatment in first-line and second-line, particularly for Asian patients.