Cost-Effectiveness and Budget Impact Analysis of Apixaban and Rivaroxaban Versus Warfarin in the Prevention of Stroke in Patients With Non-Valvular Atrial Fibrillation (NVAF) in Iran.

INTRODUCTION: This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of Apixaban and Rivaroxaban, compared to Warfarin, for stroke prevention in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation in Iran. METHOD: A Markov model with a 30-year time horizon was employed to simulate and assess different treatment strategies' cost-effectiveness. The study population comprised Iranian adults with NVAF, identified through specialist consultations, hospital visits, and archival record reviews. Direct medical costs, direct nonmedical, and indirect costs were included. Quality-adjusted life years (QALY) were assessed using an EQ-5D questionnaire. This study utilized a cost-effectiveness threshold of $11 134 per QALY. RESULTS: Apixaban demonstrated superior cost-effectiveness compared to Rivaroxaban and Warfarin. Over 30 years, total costs were lower in the Apixaban and Rivaroxaban groups compared to the Warfarin group ($126.18 and $109.99 vs. $150.49). However, Apixaban showed higher total QALYs gained compared to others (0.134 vs. 0.133 and 0.116). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for comparing Apixaban to Warfarin was calculated at -1332.83 cost per QALY, below the threshold of $11 134, indicating Apixaban's cost-effectiveness. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the findings, with ICER consistently remaining below the threshold. Over 5 years (2024-2028) of Apixaban usage, the incremental cost starts at USD 70 250 296 in the first year and gradually rises to USD 71 770 662 in the fifth year. DSA and PSA were assessed to prove the robustness of the results. CONCLUSION: This study shows that Apixaban is a cost-effective option for stroke prevention in non-valvular atrial fibrillation patients in Iran compared to Warfarin.

The prevalence and causes of self-medication among medical university students in Iran during COVID-19 outbreak and its implications for public health and health systems: A cross-sectional study.

Background and Aims: Self-medication is a worldwide phenomenon that brings advantages and disadvantages to public health and health systems. This study investigated the extent and causes of self-medication among medical university students and its implications for public health in Iran in 2020. Methods: The present study was designed as a descriptive-analytical cross-sectional study that examined the knowledge, attitude, and practice of self-medication. The population of the study was the students of health sciences programs who all entered the study. The data collection tool included a questionnaire designed online and available to students. The content validity ratio of the questionnaire was 0.84, and the alpha Cronbach coefficient was calculated at 0.8936. Results: The prevalence of self-medication among medical university students was 19%. The most common reason for self-medication was the safety of medicines (66.67%). The most usual form of medication used was the tablet (35.67%), the most common drug taken was acetaminophen (69.01%), and the most common disease to self-medicate for was headache (67.36%). Estimating the odds ratio of self-medication with demographic variables showed no relationship. However, after adjusting the variables, age and type of degree showed an association with self-medication, as the older participants and postgraduate students had positive attitudes toward self-medication. Conclusion: Self-medication may be helpful, but it often needs proper guidance and logic and can carry various risks. Considering that medical sciences students will be influential in society in the future, it is necessary to pay more attention to correcting their drug use culture and providing access to health services for everyone. Appropriate prescription of medicines, controlling drug sales in pharmacies, highlighting the role of pharmacists in safe self-medication, and controlling the prevalence of self-medication is necessary.

Cost-effectiveness and budget impact analysis of lisdexamfetamine versus methylphenidate for patients under 18 with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in Iran.

BACKGROUND: Lisdexamfetamine (LDX) and Methylphenidate (MPH) are stimulant agents that have been shown to provide significant benefits in the management of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in patients. AIM: This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness and the budget impact of LDX compared to MPH as the first-line treatment for ADHD. METHODS: A one-year cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) was conducted to compare the effects of LDX and MPH in reducing disease symptoms and patient costs and improving quality of life (QoL) from a social perspective. Clinical data were obtained using the EQ-5D questionnaire. In contrast, economic data were sourced from the official website of the Iranian Food and Drug Association (FDA), the national book of tariffs, and specific questionnaires designed to evaluate patients' direct and indirect costs. 197 patients were included in the study, including individuals who sought psychiatric evaluation at a hospital in Mashhad and those who obtained ADHD medications from governmental pharmacies. The cost-effectiveness of the study medicine was assessed using the decision tree method, and the results were presented as the Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio (ICER). Deterministic Sensitivity Analysis (DSA) and Probabilistic Sensitivity Analysis (PSA) were performed to assess the robustness of the findings. Additionally, a Budget Impact Analysis (BIA) was conducted over five years, considering three different scenarios, to evaluate the financial implications of incorporating LDX into the national pharmaceutical system. RESULTS: The ICER for LDX therapy compared to MPH was estimated at USD 264.28 (with an incremental cost of USD 54.9, incremental effectiveness of 0.208, and Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) gained of 0.765). The PSA indicated a 0.994% probability of LDX being cost-effective, considering a threshold of USD 2450 per QALY. Furthermore, the DSA revealed that the acquisition cost of LDX influenced the model's sensitivity. The BIA demonstrated that incorporating LDX into Iran's healthcare system would result in a financial burden of approximately $368,566 in the first year, representing an additional cost of $11,154 compared to the non-availability of this medicine and the use of previous medications. It is projected that by 2027, the financial burden of treating ADHD with LDX will reach approximately USD 443,879 over five years, amounting to an increase of $71,154 compared to the absence of this medicine. CONCLUSION: From a social perspective, the inclusion of LDX in the treatment regimen for ADHD is associated with higher costs and an increased financial burden. However, based on our analysis, LDX appears to be a cost-effective choice for managing ADHD in Iran when compared to MPH.

Cost-Effectiveness Comparison between Ticagrelor and Clopidogrel in Acute Coronary Syndrome in Iran.

Background: The present study aimed to determine the cost-effectiveness of ticagrelor compared with clopidogrel in Iranian patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Methods: A 1-year decision tree model combined with a 20-year Markov transition model was used to simulate the long-term cost and effectiveness of both ticagrelor and clopidogrel in Iran based on an Iranian payer's perspective. Clinical efficacy data were extracted from the PLATO trial and other published studies. Costs were estimated based on local prices in public sectors. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were used to test the robustness of base-case results over the uncertainties of model inputs. All calculations, analyses, and modeling were done in TreeAge 2011 and Microsoft Excel 2013. Results: Compared with clopidogrel, the treatment of Iranian ACS patients with ticagrelor for 20 years resulted in an additional cost of US$ 2.39 in a hypothetical cohort of 1000 patients. However, ticagrelor led to 7.2 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained per 1000 hypothetical patients. Accordingly, the estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for this analysis was US$ 332.032 per 1 QALY gained. Conclusion: Ticagrelor was a cost-effective antiplatelet medicine compared with clopidogrel in Iranian patients with ACS. This could help Iran's policymakers to allocate resources more efficiently to ACS.