scholarly journals ANALISIS EFEKTIVITAS BIAYA PENGGUNAAN ANTIBIOTIK PADA PASIEN SEPSIS DI RUMAH SAKIT SILOAM MANADO

PHARMACON ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. 836
Author(s):  
Regita Langi ◽  
Widya A. Lolo ◽  
Imam Jayanto
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Antibiotic Therapy ◽  
Research Methods ◽  
Systemic Disease ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Descriptive Research ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Life Threatening

ABSTRACT Sepsis is a systemic disease that is often life-threatening in hospitals. Treatment with antibiotics is one of the important factors supporting the success of sepsis treatment. Because of the variety of antibiotic therapy given to sepsis patients, it is necessary to do a cost-effectiveness analysis to find out which treatment therapies are more cost-effective. This study aims to find out more cost-effective therapies between the treatment of cefotaxime and ceftazidim antibiotics in sepsis patients at Siloam Hospital Manado using descriptive research methods by retrospective retrieval of data from January to December 2018. The sample in this study were 19 patients consisting of 12 patients who used cefotaxime antibiotics and 7 patients who used ceftazidim antibiotics. The results showed that cefotaxime antibiotic therapy was more cost-effective with an ACER value of IDR. 873,114/day and ICER value of IDR. 176,390/day. Keyword: Cost Effectiveness Analysis, Pharmaconomics, Antibiotics, Sepsis..  ABSTRAK Sepsis merupakan penyakit sistemik yang sering mengancam jiwa di rumah sakit. Terapi dengan menggunakan antibiotik adalah faktor keberhasilan dalam pengobatan sepsis. Karena beragamnya terapi antibiotik yang diberikan kepada pasien sepsis perlu dilakukan analisis efektivitas biaya untuk dapat mengetahui terapi pengobatan mana yang lebihcost-effective. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui terapi yang lebih cost-effective antara pengobatan antibiotik sefotaksim dan seftazidim pada pasien sepsis di RS. Siloam Manado dengan menggunakan metode penelitian deskriptif dengan pengambilan data secara retrospektif pada periode Januari - Desember 2018. Sampel dalam penelitian ini sebanyak 19 pasien yang terdiri dari 12 pasien yang menggunakan antibiotik sefotaksim dan 7 pasien yang menggunakan antibiotik seftazidim. Hasil penelitian menunjukan terapi antibiotik sefotaksim lebih cost-effective dengan nilai ACER sebesar Rp. 873.114/hari dan nilai ICER sebesar Rp. 176.390/hari.Kata Kunci : Analisis Efektivitas Biaya, Farmakoekonomi, Antibiotik, Sepsis.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness analysis of caplacizumab in the new standard of care for immune Thrombotic Thrombocytopenic Purpura in Italy

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
pp. 43-52
Author(s):  
Giovanni Di Minno ◽  
Roberto Ravasio
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Lifetime Horizon ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Life Threatening ◽  
The Cost

Objectives: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) of caplacizumab in combination with plasmapheresis (PEX) and immunosuppression compared to PEX and immunosuppression in the treatment of acute episodes of iTTP. Methods: A Markov model was used to conduct the CEA from the perspective of the hospital, over a lifetime horizon. Clinical data derived from HERCULES trial and a systematic literature review. Economic input included direct costs only. Utility and disutility values were obtained from literature. Data on healthcare resources and costs were retrieved from HERCULES trial, literature, TTP guidelines and Italian tariffs. A sensitivity analysis was conducted. The cost-effectiveness probability was tested for several options of discount levels considering a suggested willingness to pay (WTP) threshold of € 60,000 in Italy. Results: The use of caplacizumab in combination with PEX and immunosuppression is associated with a positive difference in survival of 3.27 life years (24.53 vs 21.26) and in quality of life of 3.06 QALY (22.01 vs 18.96) when compared to PEX and immunosuppression. Caplacizumab leads to an ICER per life years of € 41,653 and an ICER per QALY of € 44,572. For the suggested WTP threshold, the probability of caplacizumab being cost-effective is 82.4% (no discount), 92.8% (15% discount), 95.3% (20% discount), 96.9% (25% discount) and 98.2% (30% discount). Conclusions: Caplacizumab in addition to PEX and immunosuppression is cost-effective, allowing the hospital to achieve greater efficiency in managing the burden of a life-threatening disease such as iTTP.

scholarly journals Cost Effectiveness Analysis Using Antibiotics of Cefixime and Cefotaxime for Diarrhea Patients at X Hospital in 2017

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. 145
Author(s):  
Gayatri Citraningtyas ◽  
Ranny Inggrid Ruru ◽  
Amelia Nalang
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Antibiotic Therapy ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Data Retrieval ◽  
Retrospective Data ◽  
Research Needs ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Ratio ◽  
Descriptive Research ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Bowel Movements

Diarrhea is a disease characterized by a change in the shape and consistency of stools, from soft to liquid, and increased frequency of bowel movements, which happen three times or more in a day. Different use of antibiotics by patients results in patient’s medical cost increase. The use of expensive antibiotics does not guarantee the effectiveness of patient care, therefore a research needs to be done to determine which antibiotic therapy is more cost effective between cefixime and cefotaxime antibiotics in hospitalized diarrhea patients in X hospital. This research was descriptive research with retrospective data retrieval. This research was conducted at Medical Record Installation and  Fund mobilization department of X hospital from November 2017 - Maret 2018. The samples in this study were 42 patients with 21 patients using Cefixime and 21 patients were using an Cefotaxime. Data was analyzed descriptively in table form. The results showed that the more cost-effective therapy between Cefixime and Cefotaxime in the treatment of diarrhea in X hospital was therapy with Cefixime antibiotic, which can be seen from ACER (Average Cost-Effectiveness Ratio) Cefixime Rp. 323.428,14/day compared with Cefotaxime ACER value of Rp. 477.180,26/day for each increase in effectiveness. The lowest ICER value on Cefixime was Rp. -50.565,8.-

Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Submandibular Gland Preservation With Sialendoscopy for the Management of Sialolithiasis

2021 ◽  
pp. 019459982110268
Author(s):  
Joseph R. Acevedo ◽  
Ashley C. Hsu ◽  
Jeffrey C. Yu ◽  
Dale H. Rice ◽  
Daniel I. Kwon ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Submandibular Gland ◽  
Average Cost ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Probability Of Success ◽  
Markov Decision Model ◽  
The Cost

Objective To compare the cost-effectiveness of sialendoscopy with gland excision for the management of submandibular gland sialolithiasis. Study Design Cost-effectiveness analysis. Setting Outpatient surgery centers. Methods A Markov decision model compared the cost-effectiveness of sialendoscopy versus gland excision for managing submandibular gland sialolithiasis. Surgical outcome probabilities were found in the primary literature. The quality of life of patients was represented by health utilities, and costs were estimated from a third-party payer’s perspective. The effectiveness of each intervention was measured in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). The incremental costs and effectiveness of each intervention were compared, and a willingness-to-pay ratio of $150,000 per QALY was considered cost-effective. One-way, multivariate, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to challenge model conclusions. Results Over 10 years, sialendoscopy yielded 9.00 QALYs at an average cost of $8306, while gland excision produced 8.94 QALYs at an average cost of $6103. The ICER for sialendoscopy was $36,717 per QALY gained, making sialendoscopy cost-effective by our best estimates. The model was sensitive to the probability of success and the cost of sialendoscopy. Sialendoscopy must meet a probability-of-success threshold of 0.61 (61%) and cost ≤$11,996 to remain cost-effective. A Monte Carlo simulation revealed sialendoscopy to be cost-effective 60% of the time. Conclusion Sialendoscopy appears to be a cost-effective management strategy for sialolithiasis of the submandibular gland when certain thresholds are maintained. Further studies elucidating the clinical factors that determine successful sialendoscopy may be aided by these thresholds as well as future comparisons of novel technology.

scholarly journals Very-low-dose aspirin and surveillance colonoscopy is cost-effective in secondary prevention of colorectal cancer in individuals with advanced adenomas: network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sajesh K. Veettil ◽  
Siang Tong Kew ◽  
Kean Ghee Lim ◽  
Pochamana Phisalprapa ◽  
Suresh Kumar ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Secondary Prevention ◽  
Low Dose ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Surveillance Colonoscopy ◽  
Combination Strategy ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis

Abstract Background Individuals with advanced colorectal adenomas (ACAs) are at high risk for colorectal cancer (CRC), and it is unclear which chemopreventive agent (CPA) is safe and cost-effective for secondary prevention. We aimed to determine, firstly, the most suitable CPA using network meta-analysis (NMA) and secondly, cost-effectiveness of CPA with or without surveillance colonoscopy (SC). Methods Systematic review and NMA of randomised controlled trials were performed, and the most suitable CPA was chosen based on efficacy and the most favourable risk–benefit profile. The economic benefits of CPA alone, 3 yearly SC alone, and a combination of CPA and SC were determined using the cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) in the Malaysian health-care perspective. Outcomes were reported as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) in 2018 US Dollars ($) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), and life-years (LYs) gained. Results According to NMA, the risk–benefit profile favours the use of aspirin at very-low-dose (ASAVLD, ≤ 100 mg/day) for secondary prevention in individuals with previous ACAs. Celecoxib is the most effective CPA but the cardiovascular adverse events are of concern. According to CEA, the combination strategy (ASAVLD with 3-yearly SC) was cost-saving and dominates its competitors as the best buy option. The probability of being cost-effective for ASAVLD alone, 3-yearly SC alone, and combination strategy were 22%, 26%, and 53%, respectively. Extending the SC interval to five years in combination strategy was more cost-effective when compared to 3-yearly SC alone (ICER of $484/LY gain and $1875/QALY). However, extending to ten years in combination strategy was not cost-effective. Conclusion ASAVLD combined with 3-yearly SC in individuals with ACAs may be a cost-effective strategy for CRC prevention. An extension of SC intervals to five years can be considered in resource-limited countries.

Ixazomib (IXA), carfilzomib (CAR), elotuzumab (ELO) or daratumumab (DAR) with lenalidomide and dexamethasone (LEN+DEX) versus LEN+DEX only in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (R/R MM): A comparative cost-effectiveness analysis.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 8043-8043
Author(s):  
Mavis Obeng-Kusi ◽  
Daniel Arku ◽  
Neda Alrawashdh ◽  
Briana Choi ◽  
Nimer S. Alkhatib ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
The Other ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Treatment Comparison ◽  
Comparative Cost ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Life Years

8043 Background: IXA, CAR, ELO and DARin combination with LEN+DEXhave been found superior in efficacy compared to LEN+DEX in the management of R/R MM. Applying indirect treatment comparisons from a network meta-analysis (NMA), this economic evaluation aimed to estimate the comparative cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of these four triplet regimens in terms of progression-free survival (PFS). Methods: In the absence of direct treatment comparison from a single clinical trial, NMA was used to indirectly estimate the comparative PFS benefit of each regimen. A 2-state Markov model simulating the health outcomes and costs was used to evaluate PFS life years (LY) and quality-adjusted life years (QALY) with the triplet regimens over LEN+DEX and expressed as the incremental cost-effectiveness (ICER) and cost-utility ratios (ICUR). Probability sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the influence of parameter uncertainty on the model. Results: The NMA revealed that DAR+LEN+DEX was superior to the other triplet therapies, which did not differ statistically amongst them. As detailed in the Table, in our cost-effectiveness analysis, all 4 triplet regimens were associated with increased PFSLY and PFSQALY gained (g) over LEN+DEX at an additional cost. DAR+LEN+DEX emerged the most cost-effective with ICER and ICUR of $667,652/PFSLYg and $813,322/PFSQALYg, respectively. The highest probability of cost-effectiveness occurred at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $1,040,000/QALYg. Conclusions: Our economic analysis shows that all the triplet regimens were more expensive than LEN +DEX only but were also more effective with respect to PFSLY and PFSQALY gained. Relative to the other regimens, the daratumumab regimen was the most cost-effective.[Table: see text]

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Non-Mydriatic Ultrawide- Field Fundus Photography versus Pharmacological Pupil Dilatation in Diabetic Retinopathy Screening Program

2021 ◽  
Vol 104 (5) ◽  
pp. 818-824
Keyword(s):  
Diabetic Retinopathy ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Screening Program ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Fundus Photography ◽  
Diabetic Retinopathy Screening ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Retinopathy Screening

Background: Diabetic retinopathy (DR) causes blindness of the population in many countries worldwide. Early detection and treatment of this disease via a DR screening program is the best way to secure the vision. An annual screening program using pharmacological pupil dilatation becomes the standard method. Recently, non-mydriatic ultrawide-field fundus photography (UWF) has been proposed as a choice for DR screening. However, there was no cost-effectiveness study between the standard DR screening and this UWF approach. Objective: To compare the cost-effectiveness between UWF and pharmacological pupil dilatation in terms of hospital and societal perspectives. Materials and Methods: Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus that visited the ophthalmology clinic at Chulabhorn Hospital for DR screening were randomized using simple randomization method. The patients were interviewed by a trained interviewer for general and economic information. The clinical characteristics of DR and staging were recorded. Direct medical costs, direct non-medical costs, and informal care costs due to DR screening were recorded. Cost analyses were calculated for the hospital and societal perspectives. Results: The present study presented the cost-effectiveness analyses of UWF versus pharmacological pupil dilatation. Cost-effectiveness analysis from the hospital perspective showed the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of UWF to be –13.87. UWF was a cost-effective mean in DR screening in the societal perspective when compared with pharmacologically pupil dilatation with the ICER of 76.46, under the threshold of willingness to pay. Conclusion: The UWF was a cost-effective mean in DR screening. It can reduce screening duration and bypass post-screening blurred vision. The results suggested that UWF could be a viable option for DR screening. Keywords: Diabetic retinopathy, Diabetic retinopathy screening, Non-mydriatic ultrawide-field fundus photography, Cost-effectiveness analysis

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness analysis of acupuncture compared with usual care for acute non-specific low back pain: secondary analysis of a randomised controlled trial

2021 ◽  
pp. 096452842110557
Author(s):  
Trygve Skonnord ◽  
Arne Fetveit ◽  
Holgeir Skjeie ◽  
Mette Brekke ◽  
Margreth Grotle ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Usual Care ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Secondary Analysis ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Care Costs

Objective: To assess the cost-effectiveness of a single treatment session of acupuncture, when applied in addition to usual care for acute low back pain (ALBP). Methods: Secondary analysis of a multicentre randomised controlled trial in Norwegian general practice. In total, 171 participants with ALBP ⩽14 days were randomised to a control group (CG) receiving usual care or to an acupuncture group (AG) receiving one additional session of Western medical acupuncture alongside usual care. Primary outcome measures for this cost-effectiveness analysis were quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), health care costs and societal costs at days 28 and 365, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and net monetary benefit (NMB). The NMB was calculated on the basis of the Norwegian cost-effectiveness threshold of NOK 275,000 (USD 35,628) per QALY gained. Missing data were replaced by multiple chained imputation. Results: Eighty-six participants in the CG and 81 in the AG were included in the analysis. We found no QALY gain at day 28. At day 365, the incremental QALY of 0.035 was statistically significant. The differences in health care costs and societal costs were not statistically significant. Three out of four calculations led to negative ICERs (cost saving) and positive NMBs. For the health care perspective at day 365, the ICER was USD –568 per QALY and the NMB was USD 1265, with 95.9% probability of acupuncture being cost-effective. Conclusion: To our knowledge, this is the first cost-effectiveness analysis of acupuncture for ALBP. The findings indicate that acupuncture may be cost-effective from a 1-year perspective, but more studies are needed. Trial registration number: NCT01439412 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Cost-effectiveness analysis of neoadjuvant immune checkpoint inhibition (ICI) versus cisplatin-based chemotherapy (CBC) in muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC).

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (6_suppl) ◽  
pp. 419-419
Author(s):  
Ali Raza Khaki ◽  
Yong Shan ◽  
Richard Nelson ◽  
Sapna Kaul ◽  
John L. Gore ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Pathologic Complete Response ◽  
Weighted Average ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis

419 Background: Multiple single-arm clinical trials have shown promising pathologic complete response (pCR) rates with neoadjuvant ICIs in MIBC. However, ICIs remain costly. We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing neoadjuvant ICIs with CBC. Methods: We applied a decision analytic simulation model with a health care payer perspective and two-year time horizon to compare neoadjuvant ICIs vs CBC. For the primary analysis we compared pembrolizumab with dose dense methotrexate, vinblastine, doxorubicin, and cisplatin (ddMVAC). We performed a secondary analysis with gemcitabine/cisplatin (GC) as CBC and exploratory analyses with atezolizumab or nivolumab/ipilimumab as ICIs (vs both ddMVAC and GC). We input pCR rates from trials (ICIs) or a weighted average of prior studies (CBC) and costs from average sales price. Outcomes of interest included costs, 2-year recurrence-free survival (RFS), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of cost per 2-year RFS. A threshold analysis estimated a pCR rate or price reduction for ICI to be cost-effective and one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. Results: Results of the cost effectiveness analysis are shown in the table. The incremental cost of pembrolizumab compared with ddMVAC was $8,042 resulting in an incremental improvement of 0.66% in 2-year RFS for an ICER of $1,218,485 per 2-year RFS. A pCR of 71% or a 26% reduction in cost of pembrolizumab would render it more cost-effective with an ICER of $100,000 per 2-year RFS. GC required a 96% pembrolizumab cost reduction to achieve an ICER of $100,000 per 2-year RFS. Atezolizumab appeared to be more cost-effective than ddMVAC, even though the 2yr RFS was 0.66% worse. Conclusions: ICIs were not cost-effective as neoadjuvant therapies, except when atezolizumab was compared with ddMVAC. Pembrolizumab would approach cost-effective thresholds with 26% or 96% reduction in cost when compared to ddMVAC and GC, respectively. Randomized clinical trials, larger sample sizes and longer follow-up are required to better understand the value of ICIs as neoadjuvant treatments. [Table: see text]

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document