Taihang Shao1,2, Xia Li1,2, Chengchao Zhou3, Xiao Zang4, Daniel C Malone5, Liang Zhang6, Jifang Zhou2,7, Wenxi Tang2,7. 1. Department of Pharmacoeconomics, School of International Pharmaceutical Business, China Pharmaceutical University, Nanjing, China. 2. Center for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, China Pharmaceutical University, Nanjing, China. 3. Centre for Health Management and Policy Research, School of Public Health, Cheeloo College of Medicine, Shandong University, Jinan, China. 4. Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Brown University, Providence, RI, United States. 5. Department of Pharmacotherapy, College of Pharmacy, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, United States. 6. School of Medical and Health Management, Tongji Medical College of Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China. 7. Department of Public Affairs Management, School of International Pharmaceutical Business, China Pharmaceutical University, Nanjing, China.
Abstract
Introduction: The Chinese government has established a nationwide community-based chronic disease management program since 2009 with hypertension a vital part of it. Though drugs have been proven effective with hypertensive patients, they bring economic burden as well, especially for those who with elevated blood pressure and are potentially eligible for national programs. When the effectiveness of pharmacotherapy-only interventions remains uncertain on these patients, non-pharmacological interventions have demonstrated non-inferior effectiveness and may have economic advantages. To date, there rarely are evidences on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of non-pharmacological treatment in comparison with pharmacological interventions for patients with varying severity of blood pressure. This study aims to propose a study for a network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis to explore what kind of intervention is potentially effective and cost-effective to four specific patient groups, stage I-III hypertensive patients and patients with elevated blood pressure, and to provide recommendations for hypertensive management to Chinese decision makers. Methods: We will systematically search databases (MEDLINE, PubMed, Cochrane Library, etc.,) for randomized controlled trials and observational studies with qualified study design in recent decade that assess the effectiveness of non-pharmacological, pharmacological, or combined intervention aimed at adult populations who are diagnosed with the above four types of hypertension in China. The effectiveness outcomes will include changes in SBP/DBP, rate of comorbidities, mortality, and health related quality of life. We will use network meta-analysis to compare and rank effectiveness of different interventions. Subgroup analyses and meta-regression analyses will be performed to analyze and explain heterogeneity. The economic outcome will include cost-effectiveness based on simulation results from Markov models. Under study perspective of Chinese health system, life-time direct cost will be included. Discussion: This study aims to compare and rank the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of pharmacological, non-pharmacological and combined interventions for stage I-III hypertensive patients and those who with elevated blood pressure. Compared to existing studies, this comprehensive synthesis of relevant evidences will influence future practice with better efficiency and generalizability for community-based hypertensive management programs in China. The study might also be valuable for other low- and middle-income countries to find their own solutions. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42020151518.
Introduction: The Chinese government has established a nationwide community-based chronic disease management program since 2009 with hypertension a vital part of it. Though drugs have been proven effective with hypertensivepatients, they bring economic burden as well, especially for those who with elevated blood pressure and are potentially eligible for national programs. When the effectiveness of pharmacotherapy-only interventions remains uncertain on these patients, non-pharmacological interventions have demonstrated non-inferior effectiveness and may have economic advantages. To date, there rarely are evidences on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of non-pharmacological treatment in comparison with pharmacological interventions for patients with varying severity of blood pressure. This study aims to propose a study for a network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis to explore what kind of intervention is potentially effective and cost-effective to four specific patient groups, stage I-III hypertensivepatients and patients with elevated blood pressure, and to provide recommendations for hypertensive management to Chinese decision makers. Methods: We will systematically search databases (MEDLINE, PubMed, Cochrane Library, etc.,) for randomized controlled trials and observational studies with qualified study design in recent decade that assess the effectiveness of non-pharmacological, pharmacological, or combined intervention aimed at adult populations who are diagnosed with the above four types of hypertension in China. The effectiveness outcomes will include changes in SBP/DBP, rate of comorbidities, mortality, and health related quality of life. We will use network meta-analysis to compare and rank effectiveness of different interventions. Subgroup analyses and meta-regression analyses will be performed to analyze and explain heterogeneity. The economic outcome will include cost-effectiveness based on simulation results from Markov models. Under study perspective of Chinese health system, life-time direct cost will be included. Discussion: This study aims to compare and rank the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of pharmacological, non-pharmacological and combined interventions for stage I-III hypertensivepatients and those who with elevated blood pressure. Compared to existing studies, this comprehensive synthesis of relevant evidences will influence future practice with better efficiency and generalizability for community-based hypertensive management programs in China. The study might also be valuable for other low- and middle-income countries to find their own solutions. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42020151518.
Authors: Alan S Go; Dariush Mozaffarian; Véronique L Roger; Emelia J Benjamin; Jarett D Berry; Michael J Blaha; Shifan Dai; Earl S Ford; Caroline S Fox; Sheila Franco; Heather J Fullerton; Cathleen Gillespie; Susan M Hailpern; John A Heit; Virginia J Howard; Mark D Huffman; Suzanne E Judd; Brett M Kissela; Steven J Kittner; Daniel T Lackland; Judith H Lichtman; Lynda D Lisabeth; Rachel H Mackey; David J Magid; Gregory M Marcus; Ariane Marelli; David B Matchar; Darren K McGuire; Emile R Mohler; Claudia S Moy; Michael E Mussolino; Robert W Neumar; Graham Nichol; Dilip K Pandey; Nina P Paynter; Matthew J Reeves; Paul D Sorlie; Joel Stein; Amytis Towfighi; Tanya N Turan; Salim S Virani; Nathan D Wong; Daniel Woo; Melanie B Turner Journal: Circulation Date: 2014-01-21 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Milo A Puhan; Holger J Schünemann; Mohammad Hassan Murad; Tianjing Li; Romina Brignardello-Petersen; Jasvinder A Singh; Alfons G Kessels; Gordon H Guyatt Journal: BMJ Date: 2014-09-24
Authors: Anirudh Krishnan; Eric Andrew Finkelstein; Per Kallestrup; Arjun Karki; Michael Hecht Olsen; Dinesh Neupane Journal: Lancet Glob Health Date: 2019-10 Impact factor: 26.763
Authors: Warren Stevens; Desi Peneva; Jim Z Li; Larry Z Liu; Gordon Liu; Runlin Gao; Darius N Lakdawalla Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2016-05-10 Impact factor: 2.655