Croatian medical journal · 2026
Health economic evaluations of myasthenia gravis: a systematic review.
СтатьяСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Çipi Frenki, Koloneci Chantal, Marku Artejana, Domi Kamila, Tahiraj Xhoana, Malaj Visar, Hoxha Malvina
Аннотация
AIM: To systematically review the latest pharmacoeconomic evidence regarding the costs associated with myasthenia gravis (MG) care and treatment.
METHODS: We searched the National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database and PubMed for articles in English from any country reporting health economic analyses of pharmacological treatments, hospitalization, or surgical procedures related to MG.
RESULTS: The study included 31 articles showing a considerable variability in the costs and cost-effectiveness of MG treatments across regions, therapies, and health care settings. Traditional therapies such as plasma exchange (PLEX) and intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) differ notably in cost, with PLEX generally being less expensive. Newer clinically effective treatments such as efgartigimod and eculizumab raise concerns about their economic sustainability, whereas rituximab might be a more affordable alternative in certain contexts.
CONCLUSION: Future research should compare cost-effectiveness across health care systems, incorporating local pricing and reimbursement, and collecting real-world data.
METHODS: We searched the National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database and PubMed for articles in English from any country reporting health economic analyses of pharmacological treatments, hospitalization, or surgical procedures related to MG.
RESULTS: The study included 31 articles showing a considerable variability in the costs and cost-effectiveness of MG treatments across regions, therapies, and health care settings. Traditional therapies such as plasma exchange (PLEX) and intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) differ notably in cost, with PLEX generally being less expensive. Newer clinically effective treatments such as efgartigimod and eculizumab raise concerns about their economic sustainability, whereas rituximab might be a more affordable alternative in certain contexts.
CONCLUSION: Future research should compare cost-effectiveness across health care systems, incorporating local pricing and reimbursement, and collecting real-world data.