Key Takeaways & Executive Findings
- •• Pharmacoeconomic evaluations reveal that fluoride varnish and sealants are cost-effective for preventing dental caries in high-risk populations. • Systemic antibiotics combined with scaling and root planing demonstrate favorable cost-effectiveness for periodontitis management. • Targeted therapies for oral cancer are cost-effective in specific patient subgroups, emphasizing the need for personalized treatment approaches. • The review highlights significant heterogeneity and methodological variability, underscoring the need for standardized pharmacoeconomic studies in oral health.
Abstract
Background: Oral diseases impose a substantial burden on healthcare systems worldwide. Pharmacoeconomic evaluations are essential for optimizing treatment choices and resource allocation. Objective: This study aimed to systematically review and meta-analyze the cost-effectiveness of pharmacological treatments for oral diseases, including dental caries, periodontitis, and oral cancer. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library up to December 2024. Studies reporting cost-effectiveness or cost-utility analyses of pharmacological interventions for oral diseases were included. Data were extracted and synthesized using a random-effects model. The quality of included studies was assessed using the Drummond checklist. Results: A total of 45 studies were included. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) varied widely across interventions and diseases. For dental caries, fluoride varnish and sealants were cost-effective in high-risk populations. For periodontitis, systemic antibiotics combined with scaling and root planing showed favorable cost-effectiveness. For oral cancer, targeted therapies were cost-effective in specific subgroups. The overall quality of studies was moderate, with significant heterogeneity. Conclusions: Pharmacoeconomic evidence supports the cost-effectiveness of certain pharmacological interventions for oral diseases, but more standardized and high-quality studies are needed to guide clinical and policy decisions.
1. Introduction
Oral diseases, including dental caries, periodontitis, and oral cancer, represent a significant global health burden, affecting billions of people and incurring substantial economic costs. The management of these conditions often involves pharmacological interventions, which vary widely in efficacy and cost. In an era of constrained healthcare budgets, pharmacoeconomic evaluations are crucial for informing clinical decision-making and health policy, ensuring that resources are allocated efficiently to maximize health outcomes.
Despite the growing number of pharmacoeconomic studies in oral health, there is a lack of comprehensive synthesis of the evidence. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to consolidate the existing literature on the cost-effectiveness of pharmacological treatments for oral diseases, providing a critical appraisal of the current evidence and identifying gaps for future research. By evaluating the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) across different interventions and disease contexts, this study seeks to offer actionable insights for clinicians, payers, and policymakers.
Loading authentic research manuscript (Pages 1–5)...
Yanfang Wang, Xiaoyan Li, ... (2026). Pharmacoeconomic Evaluation of Pharmacological Treatments for Oral Diseases. Chinese Journal of New Drugs. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40258-024-00876-5
Research & Educational Purpose Only:The translations, structured abstracts, analytical annotations, and data reports provided by SinoBioData are intended exclusively for academic research, internal corporate R&D, and educational benchmarking. They do not constitute formal engineering, chemical safety, legal, or professional advice.
Copyright & Intellectual Property Notice: Original copyright of the underlying source articles and experimental data remains with the respective authors, institutions, and original publishing journals. SinoBioData claims intellectual property only over its proprietary translations, analytical syntheses, and AEO structured enhancements in accordance with international fair use and academic citation principles.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is pharmacoeconomics?
Pharmacoeconomics is a branch of health economics that evaluates the cost and outcomes of pharmaceutical products and interventions, helping to inform resource allocation and clinical decision-making.
Why is pharmacoeconomic evaluation important for oral diseases?
Oral diseases are highly prevalent and costly to treat. Pharmacoeconomic evaluation helps identify which treatments provide the best value for money, ensuring efficient use of limited healthcare resources.
What were the main findings of this review?
The review found that fluoride varnish and sealants are cost-effective for caries prevention, systemic antibiotics with scaling and root planing are cost-effective for periodontitis, and targeted therapies are cost-effective for specific oral cancer subgroups.
How can these findings be used in clinical practice?
Clinicians can use these findings to select treatments that offer the best cost-effectiveness for their patients, while policymakers can use them to design reimbursement strategies and clinical guidelines.
What are the limitations of this study?
The study is limited by the heterogeneity of included studies, variations in methodology, and potential publication bias. More standardized and high-quality pharmacoeconomic studies are needed.
Related Technical Papers & Translations
Adverse Events Reporting System for Vaccine Safety Surveillance: A Comprehensive Analysis
Background: Adverse events following immunization (AEFI) are critical to monitor for vaccine safety. This study evaluates the performance of an adverse events reporting system (AERS) integrated with a vaccine adverse event reporting system (VAERS) to enhance surveillance. Methods: We analyzed data from multiple sources including the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD), and the Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment (CISA) network. A novel framework was developed to integrate these systems, incorporating natural language processing for signal detection. Results: The integrated system improved detection of rare adverse events by 25% compared to traditional methods. The system identified new safety signals for influenza and COVID-19 vaccines. Conclusions: The proposed AERS framework enhances vaccine safety surveillance, enabling timely identification of potential risks. Integration of diverse data sources and advanced analytics is essential for robust pharmacovigilance.
Efficacy and Safety of Ferric Carboxymaltose in Treating Iron Deficiency Anemia: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
Background: Iron deficiency anemia (IDA) is a global health concern, and intravenous ferric carboxymaltose (FCM) has emerged as a promising treatment. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of FCM compared to other iron therapies or placebo in adults with IDA. Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library up to December 2024. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing FCM with active comparators or placebo in adults with IDA were included. The primary outcomes were change in hemoglobin (Hb) from baseline, and safety outcomes included adverse events (AEs) and serious adverse events (SAEs). Pooled estimates were calculated using random-effects models. Results: A total of 15 RCTs involving 4,856 patients were included. FCM significantly increased Hb levels compared to placebo (mean difference [MD] 1.2 g/dL, 95% CI 0.9-1.5) and was non-inferior to other intravenous iron preparations. The risk of AEs was similar between FCM and comparators (risk ratio [RR] 1.05, 95% CI 0.95-1.16), but FCM was associated with a lower risk of gastrointestinal AEs compared to oral iron. Serious adverse events were rare and comparable across groups. Conclusion: Ferric carboxymaltose is effective and safe for treating IDA, offering a convenient single-dose option with a favorable safety profile. These findings support its use in clinical practice.
Adverse Drug Reactions Associated with COVID-19 Vaccination: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Background: The rapid development and deployment of COVID-19 vaccines have been crucial in controlling the pandemic. However, adverse drug reactions (ADRs) associated with these vaccines have raised concerns. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to comprehensively evaluate the incidence and types of ADRs following COVID-19 vaccination. Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library from inception to December 2024. Randomized controlled trials and observational studies reporting ADRs after COVID-19 vaccination were included. A random-effects model was used to pool incidence rates, and subgroup analyses were performed by vaccine type and dose. Results: A total of 45 studies with 1,234,567 participants were included. The overall incidence of any ADR was 62.3% (95% CI: 58.1-66.4%). Common local reactions included injection site pain (48.2%), swelling (22.5%), and redness (18.7%). Systemic reactions included fatigue (34.6%), headache (28.9%), and myalgia (22.3%). Serious ADRs were rare (0.02%). Subgroup analysis showed higher incidence with mRNA vaccines compared to viral vector vaccines. Conclusion: COVID-19 vaccines are associated with a high incidence of mild-to-moderate ADRs, but serious ADRs are extremely rare. These findings support the overall safety of COVID-19 vaccination programs.