|
PUK1 |
|
COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS
OF ORAL VS INTRAVENOUS IRON GIVEN TREATMENT FOR
RENAL ANEMIA PATIENTS
Bi K, Chen W, Fudan University (former
Shanghai Medical University), Shanghai, China
OBJECTIVE:
To compare
cost-effectiveness of oral iron given and
intravenous iron given treatment for anemia
patients caused by renal failure. METHODS:
One
hundred and ninety six hemodialysis patients are
divided into two groups in the prospective
randomized multicenter clinical trial. The oral
group(n=97)patients are prescribed elementary
iron(Ferrous Succinate) 600 mg, tid. The other
group in=99 use intravenous therapy during the
hemodialysis procedure according to the required
dosage accounted in advance. And then they are
maintained 100 mg per month. RESULTS:
The mean
cost of the two group is 46714.62 yuan RMB and
46564.52 yuan RMB per year for each patient. The
cost of oral group is little higher but there is
no significant statistic difference
(p>0.050)between groups. The effective rate is
56.7% for the oral group and 86.9% for the other
with significant statistic difference (p<0.05).
CONLUSIONS:
The intravenous iron given therapy is
more cost-effective than the oral iron given
therapy in the treatment of hemodialysis patients.
|
|
|
PUK2 |
|
POTENTIAL SAVINGS WITH
EVEROLIMUS WITH REDUCED-DOSE CYCLOSPORINE COMPARED
TO MYCOPHENOLATE MOTEFIL WITH FULL DOSE
CYCLOSPORINE IN DE NOVO RENAL TRANSPLANT
RECIPIENTS IN CHINA
Yang X1, Ethgen O2, Wang W3, Lian R3, Ricci
JF1, Spaepen E4, Annemans L5, 1Novartis Pharma AG,
Basel, Switzerland, 2University of Liège, Liège,
Belgium, 3Novartis Pharma China, Beijing, China,
4IMS Health, Brussels, Belgium, 5IMS Health and
Ghent University, Brussels, Belgium
OBJECTIVE:
To explore potential savings with
proliferation signal inhibitor everolimus 1.5mg
with reduced-dose cyclosporine (CsA) vs.
mycophenolate motefil (MMF2g) with full dose CsA
in de novo renal transplant recipients in China.
METHODS:
Data were obtained from a trial that
prospectively collected one-year kidney
post-transplant resource utilization. The trial
showed similar economic outcomes for everolimus
1.5mg, 3.0mg and MMF2g with full-dose CsA. A
subsequent trial of everolimus 1.5mg or 3.0mg with
reduced-dose CsA demonstrated similar efficacy but
fewer complications. However, this latter trial
did not record resource utilization. A
multivariate model was fitted using data from the
first trial to predict direct additional resource
use and medical cost associated with failures and
complications. As no significant country-specific
cost effect on length of stay was found,
individual country cost vectors was applied. The
model was has been developed for different
European countries and presented earlier at ISPOR.
In the current analysis, resource utilization was
valued using Chinese unit cost estimates to
explore whether the results are comparable to
those of other countries. Regression coefficients
were then applied to the second trial data to
predict the economic outcomes. RESULTS:
Valuing
co-medications at brand prices, incremental costs
were CNY:489 per hemodialysis session (p<0.001),
CNY:580 per day of hospitalization due to
infection (p=0.004) and CNY:11,948 per
biopsy-proven acute rejection (p<0.001). After
adjusting for recipient age, living donors, and
cytomegalovirus treatment between the two trials,
everolimus with reduced-dose CsA could decrease
1-year costs (excluding cost of CsA, MMF and
everolimus) by CNY:15,037 (US$:1,860) vs. MMF.
Potential saving was lower when using generic drug
costs for all available co-medications: CNY:5,460
(US$:676). CONLUSIONS:
As compared to MMF with
full-dose CsA, everolimus 1.5mg with reduced-dose
CsA has the potential to reduce one-year
post-transplant cost in de novo kidney recipient
in China, to the same extent as in European
countries. |
|
