Applied health economics and health policy · 2017
Cost Effectiveness of Genotype-Guided Warfarin Dosing in Patients with Mechanical Heart Valve Replacement Under the Fee-for-Service System.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание 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.
Kim Dong-Jin, Kim Ho-Sook, Oh Minkyung, Kim Eun-Young, Shin Jae-Gook
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Although studies assessing the cost effectiveness of genotype-guided warfarin dosing for the management of atrial fibrillation, deep vein thrombosis, and pulmonary embolism have been reported, no publications have addressed genotype-guided warfarin therapy in mechanical heart valve replacement (MHVR) patients or genotype-guided warfarin therapy under the fee-for-service (FFS) insurance system.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost effectiveness of genotype-guided warfarin dosing in patients with MHVR under the FFS system from the Korea healthcare sector perspective.
METHODS: A decision-analytic Markov model was developed to evaluate the cost effectiveness of genotype-guided warfarin dosing compared with standard dosing. Estimates of clinical adverse event rates and health state utilities were derived from the published literature. The outcome measure was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to explore the range of plausible results.
RESULTS: In a base-case analysis, genotype-guided warfarin dosing was associated with marginally higher QALYs than standard warfarin dosing (6.088 vs. 6.083, respectively), at a slightly higher cost (US$6.8) (year 2016 values). The ICER was US$1356.2 per QALY gained. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis, there was an 82.7% probability that genotype-guided dosing was dominant compared with standard dosing, and a 99.8% probability that it was cost effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of US$50,000 per QALY gained.
CONCLUSION: Compared with only standard warfarin therapy, genotype-guided warfarin dosing was cost effective in MHVR patients under the FFS insurance system.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost effectiveness of genotype-guided warfarin dosing in patients with MHVR under the FFS system from the Korea healthcare sector perspective.
METHODS: A decision-analytic Markov model was developed to evaluate the cost effectiveness of genotype-guided warfarin dosing compared with standard dosing. Estimates of clinical adverse event rates and health state utilities were derived from the published literature. The outcome measure was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to explore the range of plausible results.
RESULTS: In a base-case analysis, genotype-guided warfarin dosing was associated with marginally higher QALYs than standard warfarin dosing (6.088 vs. 6.083, respectively), at a slightly higher cost (US$6.8) (year 2016 values). The ICER was US$1356.2 per QALY gained. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis, there was an 82.7% probability that genotype-guided dosing was dominant compared with standard dosing, and a 99.8% probability that it was cost effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of US$50,000 per QALY gained.
CONCLUSION: Compared with only standard warfarin therapy, genotype-guided warfarin dosing was cost effective in MHVR patients under the FFS insurance system.