The COVID-19 pandemic has expanded globally and caused serious consequence in both health system and the economy. MPV is one of two oral antivirals for COVID-19 with mild-to-moderate symptoms that have received FDA approval so far. This study aims to evaluate the cost-utility of using MPV in COVID-19 treatment. To compare the utility costs of MPV and non-MPV treatments for COVID-19 patients, we used a decision tree model. Data on clinical efficacy, cost, and quality of life were gathered from previous studies. The incremental effective cost ratio (ICER) calculated based on costs incurred and quality-adjusted life years (QALY), was considered as primary out-come. The total cost of MPV treatment and not using MPV was 15,362,516 VND (618 USD) and 15,771,262 VND (634 USD), respectively. The estimated QALY with using-MPV was 28.33, while without MPV was 19.72. The ICER was dominant, resulting in savings of 47,453 VND/QALY (1.9 USD). MPV is a cost-effective medication used to treat COVID-19. In mild-to-moderate COVID-19 patients, MPV considerably lowers costs and improves quality of life. However, several clinical factors of the drug still need to be taken into account.

The osteoarthritis (OA), the main cause of disability, is a chronic condition that most frequently affects older adults. As the population ages, the cost of treatment is placing pressure on the healthcare budget. As a result, it is imperative to evaluate the medicines' cost-effectiveness and the influence they have on health resource allocation. Hence, our study aims to summarize the cost and outcome of utilizing glucosamine in OA treatment. Authentic databases like Medline, Cochrane, and Scopus were adopted for the identification process up until July 2023. Our primary inclusion criteria centered on the economic evaluation of Glucosamine in OA treatments with provided the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) at least. The Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) instrument was applied to grade the quality of the studies. A total of 7 qualified studies were selected and discussed the cost-effectiveness of glucosamine with or without other formulations. All of them demonstrated that glucosamine was cost-effective. There was an in-creasement of QALY when incorporating Glucosamine into conventional care. Moreover, Crystalline Glucosamine Sulfate (pCGS) was more cost-effective than the Other Formulations of Glucosamine (OFG). In overall, utilizing pCGS was more beneficial than OFG in terms both of cost and quality of life.

Knee osteoarthritis is the most popular type of osteoarthritis that causes extreme pain in elderly. Currently there is no cure for osteoarthritis. To lessen clinical symptoms, glucosamine was suggested. The primary goal of our study is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of glucosamine from recent studies. Electronic databases such as PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane were used to assess RCT. From the beginning through March 2023, the papers were checked, and if they fulfilled the inclusion criteria, they were then examined. WOMAC and VAS scales were considered as main outcome measure. A total of 15 studies were selected. Global pain was significantly decreased in comparison to placebo, as measured by the VAS index, with an overall effect size SMD of -7.41 ([95% CI] 14.31, 0.51). The WOMAC scale confirmed that pain, stiffness, and physical function had improved, however the effects were insufficient. A statistical update also revealed that there were no reports of serious medication interactions or significant adverse events. To summarize, glucosamine is more effective than a placebo at reducing pain in knee osteoarthritis patients. In long-term treatment, oral glucosamine sulfate 1500 mg/day is believed to be well tolerated.

Pneumococcal disease, caused by Streptococcus pneumoniae is the leading cause of high mortality in children worldwide. The tremendous direct cost of hospital admissions and significant indirect costs from productivity loss contributed considerably to the economic burden, with vaccination being the only efficient way against the illness. Our study aims to summarize the cost-effectiveness of the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV) implemented in the pediatric population. Employing online databases from Pubmed, Embase, and Medline, we looked for economic evaluation from 2018 until March 2024. The Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratios (ICER) and Quality-Adjusted-Life-Years (QALY) were the primary outcomes for measuring PCV's cost-effectiveness. A 28-item CHEERS 2022 checklist was applied to assess the quality of collected studies. Of the 16 papers found, 9/16 discussed the lower-valent vaccine (PCV13, PCV10) and 7/16 examined the higher-valent vaccine. (PCV20, PCV15). PCV13 and PCV10 required more cost and generated more QALY compared to no vaccination. Both PCV15 and PCV20 averted substantial healthcare costs and yielded greater quality of life than PCV13. Additionally, PCV20 was a dominant strategy compared to PCV15. Utilizing PCV13 is a very cost-effective option compared to not getting vaccinated. Transitioning from PCV13 to PCV20 would result in higher QALY gain and more cost-saving than switching to PCV15.