Cost-effectiveness of Point-of-care Biomarker Assessment for Suspected Myocardial Infarction: The Randomized Assessment of Treatment Using Panel Assay of Cardiac Markers (RATPAC) Trial

2011 ◽  
Vol 18 (5) ◽  
pp. 488-495 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrick Fitzgerald ◽  
Steve W. Goodacre ◽  
Elizabeth Cross ◽  
Simon Dixon
Keyword(s):  
Myocardial Infarction ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Point Of Care ◽  
Cardiac Markers

Evaluation of a point-of-care assay for cardiac markers for patients suspected of acute myocardial infarction

2004 ◽  
Vol 346 (2) ◽  
pp. 211-219 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alan H.B Wu ◽  
Andrew Smith ◽  
Robert H Christenson ◽  
MaryAnn M Murakami ◽  
Fred S Apple
Keyword(s):  
Myocardial Infarction ◽  
Acute Myocardial Infarction ◽  
Point Of Care ◽  
Cardiac Markers ◽  
Point Of Care Assay

A Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Aspirin versus Oral Anticoagulants after Acute Myocardial Infarction in Italy

1998 ◽  
Vol 80 (12) ◽  
pp. 887-893 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jacopo Gianetti ◽  
Gianfranco Gensini ◽  
Raffaele De Caterina
Keyword(s):  
Myocardial Infarction ◽  
Coronary Artery Disease ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Interventional Procedures ◽  
Cost Allocation ◽  
Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
The United States ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Artery Disease

SummaryAims. The recent publication of two large trials of secondary prevention of coronary artery disease with oral anticoagulants (WARIS and ASPECT) has caused a revival of the interest for this antithrombotic therapy in a clinical setting where the use of aspirin is common medical practice. Despite this, the preferential use of aspirin has been supported by an American cost-effectiveness analysis (JAMA 1995; 273: 965). Methods and Results. Using the same parameters used in that analysis and incidence of events from the Antiplatelet Trialists Collaboration and the ASPECT study, we re-evaluated the economic odds in favor of aspirin or oral anticoagulants in the Italian Health System, which differs significantly in cost allocation from the United States system and is, conversely, similar to other European settings. Recalculated costs associated with each therapy were 2,150 ECU/ patient/year for oral anticoagulants and 2,187 ECU/patient/year for aspirin. In our analysis, the higher costs of oral anticoagulants versus aspirin due to a moderate excess of bleeding (about 10 ECU/ patient/year) and the monitoring of therapy (168 ECU/ patient/year) are more than offset by an alleged savings for recurrent ischemic syndromes and interventional procedures (249 ECU/ patient/year). Conclusions. Preference of aspirin vs. oral anticoagulants in a pharmaco-economical perspective is highly dependent on the geographical situation whereupon calculations are based. On a pure cost-effectiveness basis, and in the absence of data of direct comparisons between aspirin alone versus I.N.R.-adjusted oral anticoagulants, the latter are not more expensive than aspirin in Italy and, by cost comparisons, in other European countries in the setting of post-myocardial infarction.

1306-P: Cost Effectiveness of Point-of-Care HbA1c in Primary Care Setting in Brazil

Diabetes ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 68 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 1306-P
Author(s):  
DANIELLE S. MEDEIROS ◽  
LORENA S. ROSA ◽  
SOSTENES MISTRO ◽  
CLAVDIA N. KOCHERGIN ◽  
DANIELA A. SOARES ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Care Setting ◽  
Primary Care Setting ◽  
Point Of Care

Point-of-Care Troponin Testing during Ambulance Transport to Detect Acute Myocardial Infarction

2020 ◽  
Vol 24 (6) ◽  
pp. 751-759 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jason P. Stopyra ◽  
Anna C. Snavely ◽  
James F. Scheidler ◽  
Lane M. Smith ◽  
Robert D. Nelson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Myocardial Infarction ◽  
Acute Myocardial Infarction ◽  
Point Of Care ◽  
Ambulance Transport

scholarly journals Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of the Use of Point-of-Care C-Reactive Protein Testing to Reduce Antibiotic Prescribing in Primary Care

Antibiotics ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 7 (4) ◽  
pp. 106 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emily Holmes ◽  
Sharman Harris ◽  
Alison Hughes ◽  
Noel Craine ◽  
Dyfrig Hughes
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Respiratory Tract ◽  
Clinical Guidelines ◽  
Antibiotic Prescription ◽  
Point Of Care ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Routine Practice ◽  
C Reactive Protein ◽  
Reactive Protein

More appropriate and measured use of antibiotics may be achieved using point-of-care (POC) C-reactive protein (CRP) testing, but there is limited evidence of cost-effectiveness in routine practice. A decision analytic model was developed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of testing, compared with standard care, in adults presenting in primary care with symptoms of acute respiratory tract infection (ARTI). Analyses considered (1) pragmatic use of testing, reflective of routine clinical practice, and (2) testing according to clinical guidelines. Threshold and scenario analysis were performed to identify cost-effective scenarios. In patients with symptoms of ARTI and based on routine practice, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of CRP testing were £19,705 per quality-adjusted-life-year (QALY) gained and £16.07 per antibiotic prescription avoided. Following clinical guideline, CRP testing in patients with lower respiratory tract infections (LRTIs) cost £4390 per QALY gained and £9.31 per antibiotic prescription avoided. At a threshold of £20,000 per QALY, the probabilities of POC CRP testing being cost-effective were 0.49 (ARTI) and 0.84 (LRTI). POC CRP testing as implemented in routine practice is appreciably less cost-effective than when adhering to clinical guidelines. The implications for antibiotic resistance and Clostridium difficile infection warrant further investigation.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document