ArticleInternational journal of clinical pharmacy2025
Cost-effectiveness of clobazam as an adjunctive treatment for refractory epilepsy in China.
Article in International journal of clinical pharmacy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundClobazam (CLB) is an effective, safe and well-tolerated adjunctive treatment for refractory epilepsy. However, the cost-effectiveness of CLB in China remains unclear.
aimThe aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of CLB as an adjunctive therapy for patients with refractory epilepsy in China.
methodA Markov model was established to simulate the lifetime epilepsy process in patients. The epilepsy remission rate, health state utility and mortality data were derived from clinical trials and the literature. The costs were collected from the health care system in the hospital. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), which was calculated by comparing CLB as an add-on therapy with conventional therapy and was assessed in the context of the Chinese health system. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to evaluate parameter uncertainty, and several scenario analyses were also conducted.
resultsCompared with maintaining conventional therapy, adding CLB as an adjuvant therapy increased the cost of Chinese Yuan (CNY) 1770.17 over a lifetime, with an incremental quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) value of 1.02, resulting in an ICER of CNY 1737.10 per QALY gained. The daily dose of CLB had the strongest effect on the ICER. The probabilistic sensitivity analyses revealed that the probability of CLB being cost-effective was 77.35% at a willingness to pay (WTP) of CNY 85698/QALY.
conclusionCLB is a cost-effective add-on therapy for refractory epilepsy in the Chinese population.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39616291What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.