International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2023
Economic evaluation of ferric carboxymaltose compared with placebo in iron-deficient patients with heart failure: a systematic review.
Систематический обзорСтатьяНазвание 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.
Rezapour Aziz, Souresrafil Aghdas, Shamsaei Monireh, Barzegar Mohammad, Tashakori-Miyanroudi Mahsa, Ketabchi Ensiyeh
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: It has been shown that ferric carboxymaltose (FCM) improves symptoms and quality of life in iron-deficient patients with heart failure (HF).
AIM: We aimed to systematically review studies conducted on the cost-effectiveness of FCM compared to placebo in iron-deficient patients with HF.
METHOD: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, and Web of Science to find the relevant studies. After removing duplicates, two authors independently evaluated the titles, abstracts, and full texts. We included studies that investigated the full economic evaluations of FCM in HF patients with iron deficiency (cost-effectiveness analysis, cost-utility analysis, and cost-benefit analysis) and used the CHEERS tool to evaluate the quality of the studies.
RESULTS: Seven studies were included which evaluated the economic analysis of treatments with FCM in iron-deficient patients with HF. The CHEERS scores for most of the studies (n = 6) were 0.77 or higher (very good quality). The lowest incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per quality-adjusted life years (QALY) of FCM ($1801.96) was from Italy, and the highest ICER per QALY of FCM ($25,981.28) South Korea. Results of the studies showed that FCM, compared to placebo, was cost-effective in iron-deficient patients with HF.
CONCLUSION: FCM is a cost-effective treatment for iron-deficient patients with HF. Considering the fact that all the included studies in the present systematic review took place in high-income countries, we recommend further studies investigating the cost-effectiveness of FCM in low- and middle-income countries.
AIM: We aimed to systematically review studies conducted on the cost-effectiveness of FCM compared to placebo in iron-deficient patients with HF.
METHOD: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, and Web of Science to find the relevant studies. After removing duplicates, two authors independently evaluated the titles, abstracts, and full texts. We included studies that investigated the full economic evaluations of FCM in HF patients with iron deficiency (cost-effectiveness analysis, cost-utility analysis, and cost-benefit analysis) and used the CHEERS tool to evaluate the quality of the studies.
RESULTS: Seven studies were included which evaluated the economic analysis of treatments with FCM in iron-deficient patients with HF. The CHEERS scores for most of the studies (n = 6) were 0.77 or higher (very good quality). The lowest incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per quality-adjusted life years (QALY) of FCM ($1801.96) was from Italy, and the highest ICER per QALY of FCM ($25,981.28) South Korea. Results of the studies showed that FCM, compared to placebo, was cost-effective in iron-deficient patients with HF.
CONCLUSION: FCM is a cost-effective treatment for iron-deficient patients with HF. Considering the fact that all the included studies in the present systematic review took place in high-income countries, we recommend further studies investigating the cost-effectiveness of FCM in low- and middle-income countries.