PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 14650861

Pharmacoeconomic considerations.

Abstract

Pharmacoeconomic analyses can be readily applied to the study of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in the orthopedic postsurgical setting. The cost of VTE to the health care system and a cost-effectiveness trial that utilized a factor Xa inhibitor for VTE prophylaxis are discussed. The rationale for preventing VTE can be justified by its high frequency, asymptomatic nature, and high morbidity and mortality that result from unprevented thromboemboli. However, the economic burden that results from VTE is indeed significant. More effective antithrombotic prophylaxis would reduce the occurrence of VTE, the incidence of complications, and subsequent costs. Previous pharmacoeconomic analyses underscore the financial burden VTE places on the health care system in terms of increased length of hospital stay, time spent in the intensive care unit, and mean total cost. Trial-based and effectiveness-based analyses were utilized to compare the cost-effectiveness of a 7-day regimen of fondaparinux (2.5 mg once daily) and enoxaparin (30 mg twice daily). In the trial-based analysis, fondaparinux was estimated to prevent 15.1 thromboembolic events per 1000 patients at three months compared with enoxaparin; fondaparinux produced cost savings per patient at 30 days, 3 months, and 5 years postdischarge. In the effectiveness analysis, fondaparinux was estimated to prevent 17.7 thromboembolic events per 1000 patients at 3 months compared with enoxaparin; fondaparinux produced cost savings per patient at discharge, 1 month, 3 months, and 5 years postdischarge. These analyses demonstrate fondaparinux to be cost-effective for the prophylaxis of VTE in the orthopedic postsurgical setting.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Bob L Lobo. 2003-11-15. Pharmacoeconomic considerations.. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajhp%2F60.suppl_7.s11

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Pharmacoeconomic studies in Italy: a critical review of the literature.

To assess the state of pharmacoeconomics in Italy we reviewed all the original studies published by Italian authors in national and international journals from January 1994 to December 2003. We selected 70 articles and broadly assessed 92 economic evaluations (EEs) since some articles contained multiple analyses. We adopted common analysis criteria to allow methodological comparison of the studies. The variables investigated can be grouped into three categories: general methods, costs, and consequences. To further assess the quality of the EEs, we decided to rank them according to criteria of both clinical and economic good practice. Then, to complete our critical evaluation, we analysed whether sponsorship might have somehow affected the results. Our analysis seems to support the widespread scepticism of the Italian NHS decision-makers towards pharmacoeconomic studies, whose results seem to be biased by flawed methods and sponsors' interference with results.

Economics, Pharmaceutical↗

Accuracy versus transparency in pharmacoeconomic modelling: finding the right balance.

As modellers push to make their models more accurate, the ability of others to understand the models can decrease, causing the models to lose transparency. When this type of conflict between accuracy and transparency occurs, the question arises, "Where do we want to operate on that spectrum?" This paper argues that in such cases we should give absolute priority to accuracy: push for whatever degree of accuracy is needed to answer the question being asked, try to maximise transparency within that constraint, and find other ways to replace what we wanted to get from transparency. There are several reasons. The fundamental purpose of a model is to help us get the right answer to a question and, by any measure, the expected value of a model is proportional to its accuracy. Ironically, we use transparency as a way to judge accuracy. But transparency is not a very powerful or useful way to do this. It rarely enables us to actually replicate the model's results and, even if we could, replication would not tell us the model's accuracy. Transparency rarely provides even face validity; from the content expert's perspective, the simplifications that modellers have to make usually raise more questions than they answer. Transparency does enable modellers to alert users to weaknesses in their models, but that can be achieved simply by listing the model's limitations and does not get us any closer to real accuracy. Sensitivity analysis tests the importance of uncertainty about the variables in a model, but does not tell us about the variables that were omitted or the structure of the model. What people really want to know is whether a model actually works. Transparency by itself can't answer this; only demonstrations that the model accurately calculates or predicts real events can. Rigorous simulations of clinical trials are a good place to start. This is the type of empirical validation we need to provide if the potential of mathematical models in pharmacoeconomics is to be fully achieved.

Economics, Pharmaceutical↗