Value in health regional issues · 2023
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Macitentan in Comparison With Bosentan in the Treatment of Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension in Iran.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Ekhlasi Mahna, Sheikhi Shiva, Majd Zahra Karimi, Peiravian Farzad, Yousefi Nazila
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: Pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) is a chronic and progressive disease that, if left untreated, shortens the life expectancy of patients. Endothelin receptor antagonists, such as macitentan and bosentan, play an essential role in improving the patient's symptoms, quality of life, and life expectancy. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-utility of macitentan compared with bosentan in treating PAH from the health system perspective in Iran.
METHODS: For evaluating the cost-effectiveness of macitentan, a Markov model consisting of 5 states, functional class (FC) I, FC II, FC III, FC IV, and death, was designed using the TreeAge software. The lifetime time horizon and a 3-month cycle length were set. Patients entered the model from FC II or FC III states based on the initial probabilities. Costs were measured in US dollars (USD), and outcomes were measured in terms of quality quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Consequently, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated. In addition, sensitivity analysis was performed to determine the robustness of the model by examining the possible effects of uncertainties on the final result.
RESULTS: The costs of treatment with macitentan and bosentan in PAH in Iran were calculated at 19 429 and 17 246 USD, and the outcomes were 4.02 and 3.04 QALYs, respectively. Therefore, ICER was calculated at 2233.46 USD/QALY. One-way sensitivity analysis demonstrates that the model is robust; nevertheless, it is most sensitive to the price of macitentan and bosentan.
CONCLUSION: Treatment with macitentan was associated with both higher costs and QALYs than bosentan. Nevertheless, it is considered the cost-effective treatment strategy in Iran given that the calculated ICER falls below the willingness to pay threshold.
METHODS: For evaluating the cost-effectiveness of macitentan, a Markov model consisting of 5 states, functional class (FC) I, FC II, FC III, FC IV, and death, was designed using the TreeAge software. The lifetime time horizon and a 3-month cycle length were set. Patients entered the model from FC II or FC III states based on the initial probabilities. Costs were measured in US dollars (USD), and outcomes were measured in terms of quality quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Consequently, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated. In addition, sensitivity analysis was performed to determine the robustness of the model by examining the possible effects of uncertainties on the final result.
RESULTS: The costs of treatment with macitentan and bosentan in PAH in Iran were calculated at 19 429 and 17 246 USD, and the outcomes were 4.02 and 3.04 QALYs, respectively. Therefore, ICER was calculated at 2233.46 USD/QALY. One-way sensitivity analysis demonstrates that the model is robust; nevertheless, it is most sensitive to the price of macitentan and bosentan.
CONCLUSION: Treatment with macitentan was associated with both higher costs and QALYs than bosentan. Nevertheless, it is considered the cost-effective treatment strategy in Iran given that the calculated ICER falls below the willingness to pay threshold.