Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Montrer: 20 | 50 | 100
Résultats 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrer
Plus de filtres










Base de données
Gamme d'année
1.
Ter Arkh ; 91(12): 47-56, 2019 Dec 15.
Article de Russe | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32598589

RÉSUMÉ

Asthma is a heterogeneous chronic disease of airways. One of its endotypes is eosinophilic asthma, accompanied by both peripheral blood and airway eosinophilia, where severe eosinophilia is usually associated with more severe asthma. Anti - interleukin-5 (IL-5) monoclonal antibodies (MAb) can reduce eosinophil counts in peripheral blood and tissues in asthma patients. The first drug of this class registered in Russia was reslizumab. AIM: Comparative clinical and economic analysis of reslizumab use in patients with allergic asthma and eosinophilia. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Omalizumab was chosen as a reference drug, because until now it was the only MAb for the treatment of severe asthma in Russia. The study population included patients with allergic asthma with both high levels of IgE and high eosinophil counts in peripheral blood, i.e. individuals eligible for both omalizumab and reslizumab treatment. A decrease in the number of exacerbations requiring prescription of systemic corticosteroids and an increase in QALY index was used as efficacy criteria. An indirect comparative study was used, because no direct comparison has been conducted to date. As a result, reslizumab demonstrated a statistically significant reduction in the frequency of clinically significant asthma exacerbations compared with omalizumab. The utility of the both asthma treatment strategies was compared using Markov models, taking into account the frequency of exacerbations, their severity, as well as decrease in QALYs due to exacerbations. The time horizon was 12 months. RESULTS: Reslizumab treatment was 37.2% less expensive compared with omalizumab for the patients who are equally eligible for the both drugs. The calculated cost - effectiveness and cost - utility ratios were in favor of reslizumab. Budget impact analysis showed a significant effect of reslizumab on reducing budget costs. If reslizumab is used in 4250 patients (an estimated number of patients with severe allergic asthma and eosinophilia in Russia), this would reduce the costs for their treatment by up to 4896 million rubles per year. CONCLUSIONS: For patients with severe allergic eosinophilic asthma who are equally eligible for the both drugs, reslizumab can be considered a more reasonable medical technology in terms of pharmacoeconomics when compared with omalizumab.


Sujet(s)
Antiasthmatiques/usage thérapeutique , Anticorps monoclonaux humanisés/économie , Anticorps monoclonaux humanisés/usage thérapeutique , Asthme/traitement médicamenteux , Éosinophilie/traitement médicamenteux , Asthme/économie , Humains , Russie
2.
Urologiia ; (1): 32-39, 2016 Feb.
Article de Russe | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28247701

RÉSUMÉ

RELEVANCE: The present paper presents, for the first time in Russia, a comparative pharmacoeconomic analysis of using mirabegron (Betmiga) to treat overactive bladder (OAB). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three medical technologies were evaluated: treatment of OAB with mirabegron 50 mg/day, solifenacin 5 mg/day and solifenacin 10 mg/day. In addition, the strategies of mirabegron and botulinum toxin type A were analyzed as a result of simulating the second-line treatment. RESULTS: When modeling for 1-year horizon, the lowest cost was found in mirabegron strategy, which was 16% lower than with solifenacin. When comparing the second line strategies using mirabegron and botulinum toxin type A, costs of mirabegron group were 61% lower. According to the selected performance criteria, mirabegron was more effective in comparison with other strategies. The findings of the budget impact analysis revealed that using mirabegron was preferable compared with solifenacin as the first line treatment, and compared with botulinum toxin type A as the second-line treatment. The analysis of cost-effectiveness and availability of technology showed growth when using mirabegron strategy; there was an increase in the efficiency of mirabegron strategy relative to solifenacin strategy, accompanied by cost reduction and, as a consequence, reducing the burden on the budget. CONCLUSIONS: Thus, using mirabegron to treat OAB both as the first and the second line treatment is absolutely cost-effective and profitable medical technology.


Sujet(s)
Acétanilides/économie , Prestations des soins de santé/économie , Modèles économiques , Thiazoles/économie , Vessie hyperactive/économie , Acétanilides/usage thérapeutique , Coûts et analyse des coûts , Humains , Russie , Thiazoles/usage thérapeutique , Vessie hyperactive/traitement médicamenteux
SÉLECTION CITATIONS
DÉTAIL DE RECHERCHE
...