Olivier Bruyère, Johann Detilleux, Jean-Yves Reginster
{"title":"目前在泰国销售的不同氨基葡萄糖制剂的卫生技术评价。","authors":"Olivier Bruyère, Johann Detilleux, Jean-Yves Reginster","doi":"10.3390/medicines10030023","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of different glucosamine formulations and preparations used for the management of osteoarthritis in Thailand compared with placebo.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We used a validated model to simulate the individual patient Utility score from aggregated data available from 10 different clinical trials. We then used the Utility score to calculate the quality-adjusted life year (QALY) over 3 and 6 months treatment period. We used the public costs of glucosamine products available in Thailand in 2019 to calculate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. We separated the analyses for prescription-grade crystalline glucosamine sulfate (pCGS) and other formulations of glucosamine. A cost-effectiveness cut-off of 3.260 USD/QALY was considered.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Irrespective of the glucosamine preparation (tablet or powder/capsule), the data show that pCGS is cost-effective compared with placebo over a 3 and 6 months. However, the other glucosamine formulations (e.g., glucosamine hydrochloride) never reached the breakeven point at any time.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our data show that pCGS is cost-effective for the management of osteoarthritis in the Thai context while other glucosamine formulations are not.</p>","PeriodicalId":74162,"journal":{"name":"Medicines (Basel, Switzerland)","volume":"10 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10059797/pdf/","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Health Technology Assessment of Different Glucosamine Formulations and Preparations Currently Marketed in Thailand.\",\"authors\":\"Olivier Bruyère, Johann Detilleux, Jean-Yves Reginster\",\"doi\":\"10.3390/medicines10030023\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of different glucosamine formulations and preparations used for the management of osteoarthritis in Thailand compared with placebo.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We used a validated model to simulate the individual patient Utility score from aggregated data available from 10 different clinical trials. We then used the Utility score to calculate the quality-adjusted life year (QALY) over 3 and 6 months treatment period. We used the public costs of glucosamine products available in Thailand in 2019 to calculate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. We separated the analyses for prescription-grade crystalline glucosamine sulfate (pCGS) and other formulations of glucosamine. A cost-effectiveness cut-off of 3.260 USD/QALY was considered.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Irrespective of the glucosamine preparation (tablet or powder/capsule), the data show that pCGS is cost-effective compared with placebo over a 3 and 6 months. However, the other glucosamine formulations (e.g., glucosamine hydrochloride) never reached the breakeven point at any time.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our data show that pCGS is cost-effective for the management of osteoarthritis in the Thai context while other glucosamine formulations are not.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":74162,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Medicines (Basel, Switzerland)\",\"volume\":\"10 3\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10059797/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Medicines (Basel, Switzerland)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3390/medicines10030023\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medicines (Basel, Switzerland)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/medicines10030023","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Health Technology Assessment of Different Glucosamine Formulations and Preparations Currently Marketed in Thailand.
Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of different glucosamine formulations and preparations used for the management of osteoarthritis in Thailand compared with placebo.
Methods: We used a validated model to simulate the individual patient Utility score from aggregated data available from 10 different clinical trials. We then used the Utility score to calculate the quality-adjusted life year (QALY) over 3 and 6 months treatment period. We used the public costs of glucosamine products available in Thailand in 2019 to calculate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. We separated the analyses for prescription-grade crystalline glucosamine sulfate (pCGS) and other formulations of glucosamine. A cost-effectiveness cut-off of 3.260 USD/QALY was considered.
Results: Irrespective of the glucosamine preparation (tablet or powder/capsule), the data show that pCGS is cost-effective compared with placebo over a 3 and 6 months. However, the other glucosamine formulations (e.g., glucosamine hydrochloride) never reached the breakeven point at any time.
Conclusions: Our data show that pCGS is cost-effective for the management of osteoarthritis in the Thai context while other glucosamine formulations are not.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
