The Cost-Effectiveness of Continuous Erythropoiesis Receptor Activator Once Monthly versus Epoetin Thrice Weekly for Anaemia Management in Chronic Haemodialysis Patients

IF 2.2 Q3 HEMATOLOGY Anemia Pub Date : 2015-12-30 DOI:10.1155/2015/189404
O. Maoujoud, S. Ahid, H. Dkhissi, Z. Oualim, Y. Cherrah
{"title":"The Cost-Effectiveness of Continuous Erythropoiesis Receptor Activator Once Monthly versus Epoetin Thrice Weekly for Anaemia Management in Chronic Haemodialysis Patients","authors":"O. Maoujoud, S. Ahid, H. Dkhissi, Z. Oualim, Y. Cherrah","doi":"10.1155/2015/189404","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction. The aim of this study was to compare the cost-effectiveness of continuous erythropoietin receptor activator (CERA) once monthly to epoetin beta (EpoB) thrice weekly to maintain haemoglobin (Hb) within the range 10.5–12 g/dL. Methods. Prospective cohort study and cost-effectiveness analysis. Chronic haemodialysis patients (CHP), being treated with EpoB, were selected for two periods of follow-up: period 1, maintaining prior treatment with EpoB, and period 2, conversion to CERA once monthly. Hb concentrations and costs were measured monthly. Health care payer perspective for one year was adopted. Results. 75 CHP completed the study, with a mean age of 52.9 ± 14.3 years. Baseline Hb was 11.14 ± 1.18 g/dL in EpoB phase and 11.46 ± 0.79 g/dL in CERA phase; we observed a significant increase in the proportion of patients successfully treated (Hb within the recommended range), 65.3% versus 70.7%, p: 0.008, and in the average effectiveness by 4% (0.55 versus 0.59). Average cost-effectiveness ratios were 6013.86 and 5173.64$, with an ICER CERA to EpoB at −6457.5$. Conclusion. Our health economic evaluation of ESA use in haemodialysis patients suggests that the use of CERA is cost-effective compared with EpoB.","PeriodicalId":46055,"journal":{"name":"Anemia","volume":"2015 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2015-12-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1155/2015/189404","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Anemia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/189404","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

Introduction. The aim of this study was to compare the cost-effectiveness of continuous erythropoietin receptor activator (CERA) once monthly to epoetin beta (EpoB) thrice weekly to maintain haemoglobin (Hb) within the range 10.5–12 g/dL. Methods. Prospective cohort study and cost-effectiveness analysis. Chronic haemodialysis patients (CHP), being treated with EpoB, were selected for two periods of follow-up: period 1, maintaining prior treatment with EpoB, and period 2, conversion to CERA once monthly. Hb concentrations and costs were measured monthly. Health care payer perspective for one year was adopted. Results. 75 CHP completed the study, with a mean age of 52.9 ± 14.3 years. Baseline Hb was 11.14 ± 1.18 g/dL in EpoB phase and 11.46 ± 0.79 g/dL in CERA phase; we observed a significant increase in the proportion of patients successfully treated (Hb within the recommended range), 65.3% versus 70.7%, p: 0.008, and in the average effectiveness by 4% (0.55 versus 0.59). Average cost-effectiveness ratios were 6013.86 and 5173.64$, with an ICER CERA to EpoB at −6457.5$. Conclusion. Our health economic evaluation of ESA use in haemodialysis patients suggests that the use of CERA is cost-effective compared with EpoB.
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
慢性血液透析患者每月1次连续使用红细胞生成受体激活剂与每周3次生成素治疗贫血的成本-效果比较
介绍。本研究的目的是比较每月1次的持续促红细胞生成素受体激活剂(CERA)和每周3次的促红细胞生成素β (EpoB)的成本-效果,以维持血红蛋白(Hb)在10.5-12 g/dL范围内。方法。前瞻性队列研究及成本-效果分析。选择接受EpoB治疗的慢性血液透析患者(CHP)进行两期随访:第一期,维持先前的EpoB治疗,第二期,转换为CERA每月一次。每月测量Hb浓度和成本。采用为期一年的医疗保健支付者视角。结果:75例CHP完成研究,平均年龄52.9±14.3岁。EpoB期基线Hb为11.14±1.18 g/dL, CERA期基线Hb为11.46±0.79 g/dL;我们观察到成功治疗的患者比例(Hb在推荐范围内)显著增加,65.3%对70.7%,p: 0.008,平均有效性增加4%(0.55对0.59)。平均成本效益比为6013.86美元和5173.64美元,ICER CERA与EpoB的成本效益比为- 6457.5美元。结论。我们对血液透析患者使用ESA的健康经济评估表明,与EpoB相比,使用CERA具有成本效益。
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
Anemia
Anemia HEMATOLOGY-
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
3.40%
发文量
11
审稿时长
18 weeks
期刊介绍: Anemia is a peer-reviewed, Open Access journal that publishes original research articles, review articles, and clinical studies on all types of anemia. Articles focusing on patient care, health systems, epidemiology, and animal models will be considered, among other relevant topics. Affecting roughly one third of the world’s population, anemia is a major public health concern. The journal aims to facilitate the exchange of research addressing global health and mortality relating to anemia and associated diseases.
期刊最新文献
Sickle Cell Anemia Screening in Newborns and Analysis of Haplotypes in Patients from Santiago Island, Cape Verde. Detection of Asymptomatic Sickle Cell Hemoglobin Carriers and Fetal Hemoglobin Regulating Genetic Variants in African Descendants from Oaxaca, Mexico. Gut Microbiota: Potential Therapeutic Target for Sickle Cell Disease Pain and Complications. Exploring Factors Associated with Quality of Life in Caregivers of Children and Adolescents with Sickle Cell Disease and HIV: A Comparative Analysis. Prevalence of Iron Deficiency, Anemia, and Associated Factors in a Blood Donor Population in Brazzaville, Congo.
×
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