Cost-effectiveness analysis for the parenteral anticoagulants in Jordan

IF 0.5 Q4 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Journal of Pharmaceutical Health Services Research Pub Date : 2021-08-19 DOI:10.1093/jphsr/rmab045
Shatha Alquraan, Feras Darwish El-Hajji
{"title":"Cost-effectiveness analysis for the parenteral anticoagulants in Jordan","authors":"Shatha Alquraan, Feras Darwish El-Hajji","doi":"10.1093/jphsr/rmab045","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n \n \n Pharmacoeconomic dimensions linking clinical effectiveness of parenteral anticoagulants for management of acute venous thromboembolism (VTE) and cost of treatment are needed to support choices by healthcare providers. The objective of the study was to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis for 5-day treatment with parenteral anticoagulants in Jordan.\n \n \n \n Cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted based on decision analysis tree model. The perspective was the payer, considering direct medical costs. Probabilities of failure of treatment and major bleeding were derived from published clinical studies. Costs were estimated based on 2019 prices in Jordan.\n \n \n \n The average cost of VTE hospitalization and major bleeding management in Jordan were 2324.00 US$ and 3347.40 US$, respectively. Bemiparin was associated with the highest clinical efficacy and lowest probability of major bleeding. Nadroparin had the lowest clinical efficacy, while tinzaparin was found to have the highest risk of major bleeding. Bemiparin had the lowest average cost-effectiveness ratio (101.63 US$/success) and nadroparin had the highest cost-effectiveness ratio (295.56 US$/success). Throughout the sensitivity analysis calculations, bemiparin and nadroparin had the lowest and highest cost of treatment, respectively.\n \n \n \n The cost of parenteral anticoagulant drugs, the same as many other drugs, does not always correlate with cost of VTE treatment. Other direct medical costs (e.g. treatment failure and management of bleeding) have a high contribution to the total cost calculation. Pharmacoeconomically, bemiparin is the dominant cost-effective parenteral anticoagulant in Jordan, while nadroparin is the dominated one.\n","PeriodicalId":16705,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Pharmaceutical Health Services Research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2021-08-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Pharmaceutical Health Services Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jphsr/rmab045","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Pharmacoeconomic dimensions linking clinical effectiveness of parenteral anticoagulants for management of acute venous thromboembolism (VTE) and cost of treatment are needed to support choices by healthcare providers. The objective of the study was to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis for 5-day treatment with parenteral anticoagulants in Jordan. Cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted based on decision analysis tree model. The perspective was the payer, considering direct medical costs. Probabilities of failure of treatment and major bleeding were derived from published clinical studies. Costs were estimated based on 2019 prices in Jordan. The average cost of VTE hospitalization and major bleeding management in Jordan were 2324.00 US$ and 3347.40 US$, respectively. Bemiparin was associated with the highest clinical efficacy and lowest probability of major bleeding. Nadroparin had the lowest clinical efficacy, while tinzaparin was found to have the highest risk of major bleeding. Bemiparin had the lowest average cost-effectiveness ratio (101.63 US$/success) and nadroparin had the highest cost-effectiveness ratio (295.56 US$/success). Throughout the sensitivity analysis calculations, bemiparin and nadroparin had the lowest and highest cost of treatment, respectively. The cost of parenteral anticoagulant drugs, the same as many other drugs, does not always correlate with cost of VTE treatment. Other direct medical costs (e.g. treatment failure and management of bleeding) have a high contribution to the total cost calculation. Pharmacoeconomically, bemiparin is the dominant cost-effective parenteral anticoagulant in Jordan, while nadroparin is the dominated one.
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
约旦非肠道抗凝剂的成本效益分析
需要将胃肠外抗凝剂治疗急性静脉血栓栓塞症(VTE)的临床有效性与治疗成本联系起来的药物经济学维度,以支持医疗保健提供者的选择。本研究的目的是在约旦进行为期5天的胃肠外抗凝剂治疗的成本效益分析。基于决策分析树模型进行成本效益分析。考虑到直接医疗费用,观点是付款人。治疗失败和大出血的概率来源于已发表的临床研究。成本是根据约旦2019年的价格估算的。约旦VTE住院和大出血治疗的平均费用分别为2324.00美元和3347.40美元。贝米帕林具有最高的临床疗效和最低的大出血概率。那屈肝素的临床疗效最低,而廷扎帕林的大出血风险最高。贝米帕林的平均成本效益比最低(101.63美元/成功),那曲帕林的成本效益比最高(295.56美元/失败)。在整个敏感性分析计算中,贝米帕林和那屈肝素的治疗成本分别最低和最高。与许多其他药物一样,胃肠外抗凝药物的成本并不总是与VTE治疗的成本相关。其他直接医疗费用(如治疗失败和出血管理)对总费用计算的贡献很大。在药物经济学上,贝米帕林是约旦主要的成本效益高的胃肠外抗凝剂,而那屈肝素是主要的。
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
Journal of Pharmaceutical Health Services Research
Journal of Pharmaceutical Health Services Research HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
45
期刊最新文献
Effects of comprehensive medication review on opioid overuse among medicare beneficiaries. Measuring the knowledge and perception of Jordanian health science students towards self-prescribed medications: a descriptive analysis study Community pharmacists’ perception and role in early diagnosis and health promotion of celiac disease Outcomes of pharmacy facility inspections: implications on pharmaceutical services Development and feasibility of an educational module on medication reconciliation for hospital pharmacists in the United Arab Emirates: a pilot study
×
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:481959085
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