Cost-minimization analysis of drugs used in the treatment of Asthma and COPD diseases in India

2020 ◽  
Vol 15 ◽  
Author(s):  
Billu Payal ◽  
Anoop Kumar ◽  
Harsh Saxena
Keyword(s):  
Generic Drugs ◽  
Cost Minimization ◽  
Cost Savings ◽  
Chronic Obstructive ◽  
Pulmonary Medicine ◽  
Potential Cost ◽  
Maximum Cost ◽  
Cost Minimization Analysis ◽  
Cost Variation ◽  
The Cost

Background: Asthma and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Diseases (COPD) are well known respiratory diseases affecting millions of peoples in India. In the market, various branded generics, as well as generic drugs, are available for their treatment and how much cost will be saved by utilizing generic medicine is still unclear among physicians. Thus, the main aim of the current investigation was to perform cost-minimization analysis of generic versus branded generic (high and low expensive) drugs and branded generic (high expensive) versus branded generic (least expensive) used in the Department of Pulmonary Medicine of Era Medical University, Lucknow for the treatment of asthma and COPD. Methodology: The current index of medical stores (CIMS) was referred for the cost of branded drugs whereas the cost of generic drugs was taken from Jan Aushadi scheme of India 2016. The percentage of cost variation particularly to Asthma and COPD regimens on substituting available generic drugs was calculated using standard formula and costs were presented in Indian Rupees (as of 2019). Results: The maximum cost variation was found between the respules budesonide high expensive branded generic versus least expensive branded generic drugs and generic versus high expensive branded generic. In combination, the maximum cost variation was observed in the montelukast and levocetirizine combination. Conclusion: In conclusion, this study inferred that substituting generic antiasthmatics and COPD drugs can bring potential cost savings in patients.

Pharmacoeconomic features of the use of drugs used in the treatment of allergic rhinitis

2021 ◽  
pp. 9-16
Author(s):  
Afanasyeva T.G. ◽  
Lavrova N.N. ◽  
Tumentseva V.R.
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Allergic Rhinitis ◽  
Nasal Mucosa ◽  
Generic Drugs ◽  
Cost Minimization ◽  
Nasal Congestion ◽  
World Health ◽  
Cost Minimization Analysis ◽  
Wide Range

Rhinitis is an inflammation of the nasal mucosa; today, according to the World Health Organization, the prevalence of the disease is 40% of the world's population. Allergic rhinitis is the most common type of chronic rhinitis, affecting 10–20% of the world's population, and the severity of the disease is associated with a significant deterioration in the quality of life, sleep and performance. Allergic rhinitis is an inflammatory disease of the nasal mucosa caused by exposure to an allergen, causing IgE-mediated inflammation. Clinically, the disease is characterized by the following main symptoms: rhinorrhea, sneezing, itching and nasal congestion. Despite the general symptoms of allergic rhinitis, its impact on the quality of life of patients and the significant cost of treatment, including pharmacotherapy, many patients do not adhere to drug treatment regimens due to their insufficient effectiveness in eliminating the emerging symptoms. Pharmacoeconomic research identifies, measures and compares the costs and effects of drug use. This framework includes research methods related to cost minimization, cost-effectiveness, decision analysis, cost of illness, and patient quality of life. This article will consider one of the four main methods for assessing pharmacoeconomics - cost minimization analysis. A cost-minimization analysis is a pharmacoeconomic assessment by comparing the costs of two or more drug alternatives regardless of outcome. Since the pharmaceutical market is represented by a wide range of original, reference and generic drugs for the treatment of allergic rhinitis, an important aspect of our research is the selection of effective and economically acceptable therapy for outpatients.

Evaluation of the dosing strategies of biologic agents and the theoretical impact of dose rounding

2016 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
pp. 47-55
Author(s):  
Savannah Lindsey ◽  
Laura Beth Parsons ◽  
Lindsay Rosenbeck Figg ◽  
Jill Rhodes
Keyword(s):  
Monoclonal Antibody ◽  
Monoclonal Antibodies ◽  
Medical Center ◽  
Academic Medical Center ◽  
Wholesale Price ◽  
Cost Savings ◽  
Retrospective Chart Review ◽  
Potential Cost ◽  
Cost Avoidance ◽  
The Cost

Introduction Monoclonal antibodies possess unique pharmacokinetic properties that permit flexible dosing. Increased use and high costs of these medications have led to the development of cost-containing strategies. This study aims to quantify the cost savings and clinical impact associated with dose rounding monoclonal antibodies to the nearest vial size. Methods This study was a single-arm, retrospective chart review assessing all monoclonal antibody doses dispensed at an outpatient community infusion center associated with an academic medical center between August 2014 and August 2015. All monoclonal antibody doses were reviewed to determine the cost of drug wasted using two methods. The waste-cost analysis described the amount of drug disposed of due to the use of partial vials. The theoretical dose savings described potential cost avoidance based on rounding the ordered dose to the nearest vial size. The theoretical rounded dose was compared to the actual ordered dose to explore clinical implications. Results A total of 436 doses were included. Of these, 237 were not rounded to the nearest vial size and included in the analysis. The cost of waste associated with these doses was $108,013.64 using actual wholesale price. The potential cost avoidance associated with the theoretical dose calculation was $83,595.53. Rounding these doses to the nearest vial size resulted in a median 6.7% (range, 1.4–20%) deviation from ordered dose. Conclusions Rounding monoclonal antibodies to the nearest vial size could lead to significant cost and waste savings with minimal deviation from the actual ordered dose.

An Economic Evaluation of the Highlands and Islands Teledentistry Project

2002 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 165-177 ◽  
Author(s):  
P A Scuffham ◽  
M Steed
Keyword(s):  
Cost Minimization ◽  
Cost Savings ◽  
Remote Communities ◽  
Scottish Highlands ◽  
Orkney Islands ◽  
General Dental Practitioner ◽  
Dental Practices ◽  
Hospital Visits ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Outreach Visits

A 12-month trial of teledentistry was conducted in two general dental practices (one in the Orkney Islands and one in the Scottish Highlands at Kingussie). The dental practices had a PC-based videoconferencing link, connected by ISDN at 128 kbit/s, to a restorative specialist at a hospital in Aberdeen. Twenty-five patients were recruited into the trial. A cost-minimization analysis was undertaken by comparing the costs of teledentistry with two alternatives: outreach visits, where the specialist regularly visited the remote communities, and hospital visits, where patients in remote communities travelled to hospital for consultation. For Orkney patients, dental teleconsultations cost the National Health Service (NHS) an additional £36 per patient compared with outreach visits, but cost-savings of £270 per patient could be achieved compared with hospital visits. For Kingussie patients, teleconsultations cost the NHS an additional £44 and there were cost-savings of £1.54 compared with outreach visits and hospitals visits, respectively. However, patients incurred additional costs for radiographs and photographs, and the general dental practitioner incurred additional preparation time costs. When the value of patient time was included, there were cost-savings of around £900 per Orkney patient compared with hospital visits, but compared with outreach visits teledentistry cost an additional £180 per patient. Based on the trial data, there were no cost-savings from teledentistry for Kingussie patients, even when the value of time was included. These results were relatively robust in a sensitivity analysis. However, we estimated that the cost-effectiveness of teledentistry would improve with greater familiarity and use of equipment. Benefits and cost-savings would be greatest in island or remote communities, where patients have to travel long distances to hospital for specialist consultations.

A Cost-Minimization Analysis of Paediatric Telehomecare Compared to Usual Care: the lower cost more than compensates a longer stay (Preprint)

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cristina Adroher Mas ◽  
Candela Esposito ◽  
Astrid Batlle Boada ◽  
Ricard Casadevall ◽  
Marta Millet ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Usual Care ◽  
User Satisfaction ◽  
Cost Minimization ◽  
Adult Population ◽  
Hospital Costs ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Hospital Perspective ◽  
Cost Minimization Analysis ◽  
Hospitalization Costs ◽  
The Cost

BACKGROUND While home hospitalization has been a well-known and widespread practice for some time in the adult population, it has not been the same case in the paediatric setting. Simultaneously, telemedicine tools are a facilitator of the change in the healthcare model, which is increasingly focused on home care. In a pioneering way in Spain, the in-home hospitalization program of the Hospital Sant Joan de Déu in Barcelona allows the child to be in their home environment at the time they are being monitored and clinically followed by the professionals. In addition to being the preferred option for families, previous experience suggest that paediatric home hospitalization reduces costs, primarily thanks to savings on the structural cost of the stay. OBJECTIVE To compare the average cost of a discharge by telehomecare with the usual care and to analyse the main drivers of the differential costs of both care models. METHODS Cost-minimization analysis conducted under a hospital’s perspective, based on observational data and estimated retrospectively. A historical control group of similar patients in terms of clinical casuistry to children hospitalized at home was used for comparison. RESULTS A 24h stay at the hospital costs € 503.68, while the in-home hospitalization costs € 264.66 per day, representing a saving of almost half (48%) of the cost compared to usual care. The main savings drivers were the personnel costs (35.5% of the total), intermediate non-care costs (33.17%), and structural costs (19.04%). Home hospitalization involves a total stay 27.61% longer, but at a daily cost of almost half, represents a € 155 (9.01%) per 24h stay saving. CONCLUSIONS The cost analysis conducted under a hospital perspective shows that paediatric telehomecare is 9% cheaper compared to regular hospital care. These results motivate the most widespread implementation of the service from the point of view of economic efficiency, adding to previous experiences that suggest that it is also preferable from the perspective of user satisfaction.

scholarly journals 2694. Incidence of Pneumocytis jiroveci (PJP) Infection with 3-Month Prophylaxis of Aerosolized Pentamidine (AP) in Autologous Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation (HSCT)

2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (Supplement_2) ◽  
pp. S947-S947
Author(s):  
Sarah Perreault ◽  
Dayna McManus ◽  
Rebecca Pulk ◽  
Jeffrey E Topal ◽  
Francine Foss ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Savings ◽  
Cost Comparison ◽  
High Dose ◽  
Potential Cost ◽  
Hematopoietic Stem ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
One Year ◽  
Relapsed Disease ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Autologous Hsct

Abstract Background HSCT patients are at an increased risk of developing PJP after transplant due to treatment induced immunosuppression. Given the risk of cytopenias with co-trimoxazole, AP is utilized as an alternative for PJP prophylaxis. A prior study revealed a 0% (0/19 patients) incidence when AP prophylaxis was given for one year post autologous HSCT. Current guidelines recommend a duration of 3 – 6 months for PJP prophylaxis in autologous HSCT. The primary endpoint of this study was to assess the incidence of PJP infection within one year post autologous HSCT in patients who received 3 months of AP. Secondary endpoint was a cost comparison of 3 months compared with 6 months of AP. Methods A single-center, retrospective study of adult autologous HSCT patients at Yale New Haven Hospital between February 2013 and December 2017 was performed. Patients were excluded if: <18 years of age, received < or >3 months of AP, changed to alternative PJP prophylactic agent or received no PJP prophylaxis, received tandem HSCT, deceased prior to one year post-transplant from a non PJP-related infection, HIV positive, or lost to follow-up. Pentamidine was given as a 300 mg inhalation monthly for 3 months starting Day +15 after autologous HSCT. Results A total of 288 patients were analyzed, no PJP infections occurred within one year post HSCT. Additionally, 187 (65%) patients received treatment post HSCT with 135/215 (63%) receiving maintenance immunomodulatory drugs for myeloma and 40/288 (14%) patients developing relapsed disease. 43% of the chemotherapy regimens for relapsed disease included high dose corticosteroids. The cost difference of using 3 months vs. 6 months of AP is $790, reflecting the cost of drug and its administration. Applying our incidence of 0%, potential cost savings of 3 months vs. 6 months of AP would be $330,000 over 5 years or $66,000 per year. Conclusion Three months of AP for PJP prophylaxis in autologous HSCT patients is safe and effective as well as cost-effective compared with a 6 month regimen. Disclosures All authors: No reported disclosures.

scholarly journals Cry for health: a quantitative evaluation of a hospital-based advocacy intervention for domestic violence and abuse

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gemma Halliwell ◽  
Sandi Dheensa ◽  
Elisabetta Fenu ◽  
Sue K Jones ◽  
Jessica Asato ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Domestic Violence ◽  
Health Service ◽  
Health Services ◽  
Service Use ◽  
Cost Savings ◽  
Health Service Use ◽  
Potential Cost ◽  
Safety Outcomes ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Domestic Violence And Abuse

Abstract Background Domestic violence and abuse damages the health of survivors and increases use of healthcare services. We report findings from a multi-site evaluation of hospital-based advocacy services, designed to support survivors attending emergency departments and maternity services. Methods Independent Domestic Violence Advisors (IDVA) were co-located in five UK hospitals. Case-level data were collected at T1 (initial referral) and T2 (case closure) from survivors accessing hospital (T1 N = 692; T2 N = 476) and community IDVA services (T1 N = 3,544; T2 N = 2,780), used as a comparator. Measures included indicators of sociodemographic characteristics, experience of abuse, health service use, health and safety outcomes. Multivariate analyses tested for differences in changes in abuse, health and factors influencing safety outcomes. Health service use data in the six months pre-and post- intervention were compared to generate potential cost savings by hospital IDVA services. Results Hospital IDVAs worked with survivors less visible to community IDVA services and facilitated intervention at an earlier point. Hospital IDVAs received higher referrals from health services and enabled access to a greater number of health resources. Hospital survivors were more likely to report greater reductions in and cessation of abuse. No differences were observed in health outcomes for hospital survivors. The odds of safety increased two-fold if hospital survivors received over five contacts with an IDVA or accessed six or more resources / programmes over a longer period of time. Six months preceding IDVA intervention, hospital survivors cost on average £2,463 each in use of health services; community survivors cost £533 each. The cost savings observed among hospital survivors amounted to a total of £2,050 per patient per year. This offset the average cost of providing hospital IDVA services. Conclusions Hospital IDVAs can identify survivors not visible to other services and promote safety through intensive support and access to resources. The co-location of IDVAs within the hospital encouraged referrals to other health services and wider community agencies. Further research is required to establish the cost-effectiveness of hospital IDVA services, however our findings suggest these services could be an efficient use of health service resources.

scholarly journals A cost-minimization analysis of combination therapy in hypertension: fixed-dose vs extemporary combinations

2013 ◽  
Vol 14 (4) ◽  
pp. 153-160
Author(s):  
Marco Bellone ◽  
Pierluigi Sbarra
Keyword(s):  
National Health ◽  
Cost Minimization ◽  
National Health System ◽  
Antihypertensive Agents ◽  
Cost Savings ◽  
Cost Driver ◽  
Fixed Dose ◽  
Daily Cost ◽  
Cost Minimization Analysis ◽  
Acquisition Costs

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular disease management and prevention represent the leading cost driver in Italian healthcare expenditure. In order to reach the target blood pressure, a large majority of patients require simultaneous administration of multiple antihypertensive agents.OBJECTIVE: To assess the economic impact of the use of fixed dose combinations of antihypertensive agents, compared to the extemporary combination of the same principles.METHODS: A cost minimization analysis was conducted to determine the pharmaceutical daily cost of five fixed dose combinations (olmesartan 20 mg + amlodipine 5 mg, perindopril 5 mg + amlodipine 5 mg, enalapril 20 mg + lercanidipine 10 mg, felodipine 5 mg + ramipril 5 mg, and delapril 30 mg + manidipine 10 mg) compared with extemporary combination of the same principles in the perspective of the Italian NHS. Daily acquisition costs are estimated based on current Italian prices and tariffs.RESULTS: In three cases the use of fixed‑dose combination instead of extemporary combination induces a lower daily cost. Fixed combination treatment with delapril 30 mg + manidipine 10 mg induces greater cost savings for the National Health System (95,47 €/pts/year), as compared to free drugs combination therapy.CONCLUSIONS: Compared with free drug combinations, fixed‑dose combinations of antihypertensive agents are associated with lower daily National Health Service acquisition costs.

scholarly journals Financial Impact of Cancer Drug Wastage and Potential Cost Savings From Mitigation Strategies

2017 ◽  
Vol 13 (7) ◽  
pp. e646-e652 ◽  
Author(s):  
Caitlyn Y.W. Leung ◽  
Matthew C. Cheung ◽  
Lauren F. Charbonneau ◽  
Anca Prica ◽  
Pamela Ng ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Savings ◽  
Mitigation Strategies ◽  
Drug Costs ◽  
Financial Impact ◽  
Cancer Drug ◽  
Total Drug ◽  
Potential Cost ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Drug Wastage ◽  
The Cost

Purpose: Cancer drug wastage occurs when a parenteral drug within a fixed vial is not administered fully to a patient. This study investigated the extent of drug wastage, the financial impact on the hospital budget, and the cost savings associated with current mitigation strategies. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study in three University of Toronto–affiliated hospitals of various sizes. We recorded the actual amount of drug wasted over a 2-week period while using current mitigation strategies. Single-dose vial cancer drugs with the highest wastage potentials were identified (14 drugs). To calculate the hypothetical drug wastage with no mitigation strategies, we determined how many vials of drugs would be needed to fill a single prescription. Results: The total drug costs over the 2 weeks ranged from $50,257 to $716,983 in the three institutions. With existing mitigation strategies, the actual drug wastage over the 2 weeks ranged from $928 to $5,472, which was approximately 1% to 2% of the total drug costs. In the hypothetical model with no mitigation strategies implemented, the projected drug cost wastage would have been $11,232 to $149,131, which accounted for 16% to 18% of the total drug costs. As a result, the potential annual savings while using current mitigation strategies range from 15% to 17%. Conclusion: The financial impact of drug wastage is substantial. Mitigation strategies lead to substantial cost savings, with the opportunity to reinvest those savings. More research is needed to determine the appropriate methods to minimize risk to patients while using the cost-saving mitigation strategies.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document