Value in health regional issues · 2020
Cefuroxime (Aprokam®) in the Prophylaxis of Postoperative Endophthalmitis After Cataract Surgery Versus Absence of Antibiotic Prophylaxis: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis in Poland.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Rękas Marek, Młyńczak Katarzyna, Dobrowolska Iwona, Niewada Maciej, Golicki Dominik
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: The analysis aims to assess the cost-effectiveness of cefuroxime (Aprokam®) in the prophylaxis of postoperative endophthalmitis (POE) after cataract surgery compared with the absence of antibiotic prophylaxis from the National Health Fund perspective in Poland.
METHODS: We performed a cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analysis using the decision tree and Markov model, respectively, for patients after cataract surgery. The efficacy of Aprokam was 0.21 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.08-0.55) and is based on the results of the European Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery study. According to the epidemiological data from Poland, the risk of POE is 0.377%. The costs associated with the Aprokam administration and POE treatment costs were included. We determined the utilities of the health states in the model depending on visual loss due to POE. To determine the uncertainty of estimates parameters, a one-way deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were performed.
RESULTS: Using Aprokam allows avoiding 0.003 POEs per patient. The benefit from the intervention is 0.0007 quality-adjusted life years per patient in the lifetime horizon. The total costs of prophylaxis are higher at about €1.70. The cost of avoiding one POE (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio) is about €569.85. The estimated incremental cost-effectiveness utility ratio is equal to €2427.72/quality-adjusted life-years, and it is significantly lower than the cost-effectiveness threshold in Poland in 2019 (about 7.5% of the threshold). In all scenarios of performed one-way sensitivity analyses, Aprokam is cost-effective.
CONCLUSIONS: In Poland, the use of Aprokam is cost-effective, with the estimated incremental cost-utility ratio significantly lower than the cost-effectiveness threshold.
METHODS: We performed a cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analysis using the decision tree and Markov model, respectively, for patients after cataract surgery. The efficacy of Aprokam was 0.21 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.08-0.55) and is based on the results of the European Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery study. According to the epidemiological data from Poland, the risk of POE is 0.377%. The costs associated with the Aprokam administration and POE treatment costs were included. We determined the utilities of the health states in the model depending on visual loss due to POE. To determine the uncertainty of estimates parameters, a one-way deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were performed.
RESULTS: Using Aprokam allows avoiding 0.003 POEs per patient. The benefit from the intervention is 0.0007 quality-adjusted life years per patient in the lifetime horizon. The total costs of prophylaxis are higher at about €1.70. The cost of avoiding one POE (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio) is about €569.85. The estimated incremental cost-effectiveness utility ratio is equal to €2427.72/quality-adjusted life-years, and it is significantly lower than the cost-effectiveness threshold in Poland in 2019 (about 7.5% of the threshold). In all scenarios of performed one-way sensitivity analyses, Aprokam is cost-effective.
CONCLUSIONS: In Poland, the use of Aprokam is cost-effective, with the estimated incremental cost-utility ratio significantly lower than the cost-effectiveness threshold.