Cost Effectiveness Analysis Rivaroxaban Plus Aspirin versus Aspirin alone in Treatment Cardiovascular Diseases: A Systematic Review.

Q2 Medicine Medical Journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran Pub Date : 2024-09-16 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.47176/mjiri.38.106
Asma Rashki Kemmak, Leila Etemad, Atoosa Haghighizadeh, Nadia Saniee, Omid Rajabi
{"title":"Cost Effectiveness Analysis Rivaroxaban Plus Aspirin versus Aspirin alone in Treatment Cardiovascular Diseases: A Systematic Review.","authors":"Asma Rashki Kemmak, Leila Etemad, Atoosa Haghighizadeh, Nadia Saniee, Omid Rajabi","doi":"10.47176/mjiri.38.106","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) are one of the chronic diseases and the leading cause of death worldwide. More people die from CVDs worldwide than from any other cause each year. The effects of CVDs are not limited to mortality and morbidity but also have important health and economic outcomes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This was a systematic review that evaluated the economic evaluation of rivaroxaban plus aspirin compared with aspirin alone for the treatment of CVDs. The present study reviewed articles that performed a complete economic evaluation, including cost-effectiveness analysis, cost-utility analysis, and cost-benefit analysis related to the economic evaluation of rivaroxaban compared to enoxaparin for knee replacement patients during the years 2007 and 2023. In order to find relevant studies, databases including Pubmed, Web of Science, Embase, Scopus, Economic Evaluations Database, and Proquest were searched. Inclusion criteria included Studies that carried out a complete economic evaluation including cost-effectiveness analysis, cost-utility analysis, and cost-benefit analysis in relation to the economic evaluation of rivaroxaban plus aspirin compared to aspirin alone for CVD patients, economic evaluation studies carried out using decision analysis models based on the economic evaluation approach, full-text studies, English studies, and were studies published between 2007 and 2023. Exclusion criteria also included partial economic evaluation (such as effectiveness evaluation, cost evaluation, and quality of life evaluation), studies of low methodological quality based on the CHEERS checklist, non-English studies and all protocols, conference abstracts, and letters-to-the-editor.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>After searching various databases, all retrieved articles were entered into EndNote software, and duplicates were removed. The remaining studies were reviewed independently by two relevant researchers. At this stage, preferred reporting items for systematic reviews (PRISMA) were used to retrieve the final articles. Out of 1048 studies, nine studies met the inclusion criteria. The economic evaluation studies included in the present study were conducted between 2018 and 2023. Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) was used in all studies.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The findings of the present study showed that rivaroxaban plus aspirin is more cost-effective than aspirin alone in the patient with CVDs, But to generalize the results to other countries of the world, more studies are needed.</p>","PeriodicalId":18361,"journal":{"name":"Medical Journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran","volume":"38 ","pages":"106"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11707709/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.47176/mjiri.38.106","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) are one of the chronic diseases and the leading cause of death worldwide. More people die from CVDs worldwide than from any other cause each year. The effects of CVDs are not limited to mortality and morbidity but also have important health and economic outcomes.

Methods: This was a systematic review that evaluated the economic evaluation of rivaroxaban plus aspirin compared with aspirin alone for the treatment of CVDs. The present study reviewed articles that performed a complete economic evaluation, including cost-effectiveness analysis, cost-utility analysis, and cost-benefit analysis related to the economic evaluation of rivaroxaban compared to enoxaparin for knee replacement patients during the years 2007 and 2023. In order to find relevant studies, databases including Pubmed, Web of Science, Embase, Scopus, Economic Evaluations Database, and Proquest were searched. Inclusion criteria included Studies that carried out a complete economic evaluation including cost-effectiveness analysis, cost-utility analysis, and cost-benefit analysis in relation to the economic evaluation of rivaroxaban plus aspirin compared to aspirin alone for CVD patients, economic evaluation studies carried out using decision analysis models based on the economic evaluation approach, full-text studies, English studies, and were studies published between 2007 and 2023. Exclusion criteria also included partial economic evaluation (such as effectiveness evaluation, cost evaluation, and quality of life evaluation), studies of low methodological quality based on the CHEERS checklist, non-English studies and all protocols, conference abstracts, and letters-to-the-editor.

Results: After searching various databases, all retrieved articles were entered into EndNote software, and duplicates were removed. The remaining studies were reviewed independently by two relevant researchers. At this stage, preferred reporting items for systematic reviews (PRISMA) were used to retrieve the final articles. Out of 1048 studies, nine studies met the inclusion criteria. The economic evaluation studies included in the present study were conducted between 2018 and 2023. Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) was used in all studies.

Conclusion: The findings of the present study showed that rivaroxaban plus aspirin is more cost-effective than aspirin alone in the patient with CVDs, But to generalize the results to other countries of the world, more studies are needed.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
利伐沙班加阿司匹林与阿司匹林单独治疗心血管疾病的成本效益分析:一项系统综述。
背景:心血管疾病(cvd)是慢性疾病之一,也是世界范围内导致死亡的主要原因。全世界每年死于心血管疾病的人比死于其他任何原因的人都多。心血管疾病的影响不仅限于死亡率和发病率,而且还具有重要的健康和经济后果。方法:这是一项系统评价,比较利伐沙班加阿司匹林与阿司匹林单独治疗心血管疾病的经济评价。本研究回顾了2007年至2023年间利伐沙班与依诺肝素在膝关节置换术患者中的经济评价,包括成本-效果分析、成本-效用分析和成本-收益分析。为了找到相关的研究,检索了Pubmed、Web of Science、Embase、Scopus、Economic evaluation Database和Proquest等数据库。纳入标准包括开展完整经济评价的研究,包括与利伐沙班加阿司匹林治疗CVD患者相比单独使用阿司匹林的经济评价相关的成本-效果分析、成本-效益分析、成本-效益分析、使用基于经济评价方法的决策分析模型进行的经济评价研究、全文研究、英文研究以及发表于2007年至2023年之间的研究。排除标准还包括部分经济评价(如有效性评价、成本评价和生活质量评价)、基于CHEERS检查表的低方法学质量的研究、非英语研究和所有协议、会议摘要和致编辑信。结果:检索各种数据库后,将所有检索到的文章输入EndNote软件,去除重复。其余的研究由两位相关研究人员独立审查。在此阶段,使用系统评价首选报告项(PRISMA)检索最终文章。在1048项研究中,有9项研究符合纳入标准。本研究中包括的经济评价研究是在2018年至2023年之间进行的。所有研究均采用成本-效果分析(CEA)。结论:本研究结果表明,利伐沙班联合阿司匹林治疗心血管疾病比单独使用阿司匹林更划算,但要将结果推广到世界其他国家,还需要进行更多的研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
90
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊最新文献
Exploring Hedging Devices in Scientific Research Papers: A Content Analysis Study of the 'Medical Journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran'. Exploring the Link between Emotional Schemas and Rumination: How Emotional Flexibility Acts as a Mediator. Comparison between Tracheostomy and No Tracheostomy on the Incidence of Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia (VAP) Using the Modified Clinical Pulmonary Infection Score (MCPIS): A Prospective Cohort Study. Risk Factors of Chronic Subdural Hematoma Recurrence: A Systematic Review. The Role of 2-Dimensional and 3-Dimensional Speckle Tracking Echocardiography in Detecting Early Myocardial Dysfunction in Obstructive Sleep Apnea Patients.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1