Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Mais filtros

Bases de dados
País/Região como assunto
Ano de publicação
Tipo de documento
País de afiliação
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
Pharmacoeconomics ; 38(7): 747-764, 2020 07.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32239480

RESUMO

OBJECTIVES: Patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) are commonly treated with renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors (RAASi) in order to delay progression of renal disease. However, research has shown that RAASi in CKD patients increases hyperkalaemia (HK) prevalence, which leads to RAASi discontinuation or dose reduction with the loss of benefits on the kidney. Patiromer is a novel therapy for HK treatment and may enable patients to remain on their RAASi regimen. This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of patiromer from a Swedish healthcare perspective. METHODS: A Markov model was developed to evaluate the economic outcomes of patiromer versus no patiromer in HK patients with stage 3-4 CKD taking RAASi. The model consisted of six health states reflecting disease progression and hospitalisations. The analysis mainly considered clinical data from the OPAL-HK trial and national costs. The main outcomes of interest were incremental costs (euro [EUR] 2016) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), discounted at 3%, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Extensive uncertainty analyses were performed. RESULTS: In comparison to no patiromer, a patiromer patient gained 0.14 QALYs and an incremental cost of EUR 6109 (Swedish krona [SEK] 57,850), yielding an ICER of EUR 43,307 (SEK 410,072)/QALY gained. The results were robust to a range of sensitivity analyses. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of EUR 52,804 (SEK 500,000)/QALY, patiromer had a 50% chance of being cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS: The results indicate that patiromer may demonstrate value for money in Swedish patients with stage 3-4 CKD, by enabling RAASi treatment. However, there is a considerable degree of uncertainty.


Assuntos
Hiperpotassemia/tratamento farmacológico , Polímeros/administração & dosagem , Insuficiência Renal Crônica/tratamento farmacológico , Sistema Renina-Angiotensina/efeitos dos fármacos , Idoso , Análise Custo-Benefício , Progressão da Doença , Quimioterapia Combinada , Feminino , Hospitalização/economia , Humanos , Masculino , Cadeias de Markov , Polímeros/economia , Anos de Vida Ajustados por Qualidade de Vida , Insuficiência Renal Crônica/economia , Suécia , Incerteza
2.
Eur J Hosp Pharm ; 20(4): 227-231, 2013 Aug.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-23888248

RESUMO

OBJECTIVES: To assess cost implications per patient, per year, and to predict the potential annual budget impact when patients with bone metastases secondary to solid tumours at risk of skeletal-related events (SREs) transition from zoledronic acid (ZA; 4 mg every 3-4 weeks) to denosumab (120 mg every 4 weeks) in Austria, Sweden and Switzerland. METHODS: Country specific costs for medication and administration, patient management and SREs (defined as pathologic fracture, radiation to bone, surgery to bone and spinal cord compression) were assessed over a 1-year time horizon. Drug administration and patient management costs were taken from available public sources. SRE costs were based on local unit costs applied to country specific healthcare resources obtained from a multinational retrospective chart review study. Due to lack of real world data for the included countries, SRE rates were derived from phase III clinical trials in patients with advanced cancer and bone metastases. These trials demonstrated that denosumab was superior to ZA in the reduction of SREs. RESULTS: Estimated total annual cost savings for each patient transitioned from ZA to denosumab varied by country and cancer type, ranging from €1583 to €2375 in Austria, from €1980 to €2319 in Sweden (9.1 SEK/€) and from €3408 to €3857 in Switzerland (1.2 CHF/€). Cost savings were mainly driven by the lower SRE related costs and lower administration costs of denosumab compared with ZA. CONCLUSIONS: Denosumab offers superior efficacy compared with ZA in patients with solid tumours and bone metastases. Cost savings are predicted in the Austrian, Swedish and Swiss healthcare systems following treatment transition from ZA to denosumab.

SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA