PubMed · 11709624
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
2001. Robin Goodfellow.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11709624/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the value of genotype-based dosing by polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based polymorphism screening in terms of cost-effectiveness for treatment with azathioprine in Korea. METHODS: Decision analysis was employed to compare a genotype-based dosing strategy with the conventional weight-based dosing strategy using a hypothetical cohort composed of rheumatoid arthritis and systemic lupus erythematosus patients. The time horizon was set up as 1 yr. Direct medical costs were used. Data used were obtained from previous reports, except for PCR and admission costs, which were from real cases. Cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted from a societal perspective. Outcomes were measured as a total expected cost and an incremental cost-effective ratio. RESULTS: In the base case model, total expected cost and the probability of not dropping out owing to serious adverse events of the conventional weight-based dosing and the genotype-based dosing strategy were 1339 x 10(3) Korean won (1,117 US dollars) and 1109 x 10(3) Korean won (926 US dollars), and 97.06 and 99.90%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Our model suggests that a genotype-based dosing strategy through PCR-based thiopurine methyltransferase (TPMT) polymorphism screening is less costly and more effective than the conventional weight-based dosing strategy in Korea, as it was associated with a marked reduction in the number of serious adverse events.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the current disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (DMARD) preferences of UK consultant rheumatologists. METHODS: A questionnaire was sent in May 2002. We asked which DMARD(s) was most frequently preferred first and sought the most typical sequence of DMARDs, including DMARD combinations. Also we determined the extent to which prognostic and other factors influenced treatment choices. Comments were invited, written responses abstracted and key themes identified. RESULTS: After two mailings, 331 (of 460; 72%) suitable questionnaires were returned. Ninety-five per cent (315/331) preferred methotrexate (154, 46.5%) or sulphasalazine (144, 43.5%) or either of these two (17, 5%) as first-choice agent. Of those who chose methotrexate first, 80% (123/154) ranked sulphasalazine second, 45% (55/123) combined sulphasalazine and methotrexate and 49% (27/55) then added hydroxychloroquine to this combination, in active disease. Of those who chose sulphasalazine first, 95% (137/144) ranked methotrexate second, 75% (113/150) preferring methotrexate monotherapy and 12% (18/150) the combination with sulphasalazine. Rheumatologists who preferred sulphasalazine first more commonly used subsequent DMARDs singly than those who started with methotrexate (P < 0.0001). Leflunomide was more commonly preferred than intramuscular gold as third choice (52/145 vs 29/145; P < 0.003). The most popular sequence of DMARDs was methotrexate or sulphasalazine, singly or in combination, leflunomide, intramuscular gold and anti-tumour necrosis factor therapy. Poor prognostic factors influenced DMARD choice, but patient occupation and drug costs did not. CONCLUSION: Methotrexate has displaced other DMARDs, especially sulphasalazine, as agent of first choice and newer agents have displaced older DMARDs. Whether the expressed preference for particular DMARDs accurately reflects actual use, and is optimal in rheumatoid arthritis, remains to be determined.