Minerva ginecologica · 2016
Repeated-intermittent use of ulipristal acetate for the management of uterine fibroids: an Italian pharmacoeconomic evaluation.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Maratea Dario
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The aim of this paper was to evaluate an Italian pharmacoeconomic profile of repeated-intermittent (from 4 to 10 cycles) use of ulipristal acetate 5 mg (UPA 5 mg) in comparison with the use of UPA 5 mg before surgery (2 cycles) for the management of symptomatic uterine fibroids.
METHODS: The pharmacoeconomic analysis was performed in two steps: 1) estimating an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER); 2) assuming a nationwide prediction of future expenditure in the Italian scenario. Effectiveness data were derived from the randomized-controlled trial, whilst quality of life and costs data were retrieved from the published literature.
RESULTS: In comparison with the use of UPA 5 mg before surgery, the values of ICER per patient were the following: 1) €20,600 euros (UPA 5 mg 4 cycles); 2) €26,884 (UPA 5mg 6 cycles); 3) €30,244 (UPA 5 mg 8 cycles); 4) €31,906 (UPA 5 mg 10 cycles). In comparison with the use of UPA 5 mg before surgery plus subsequent surgery, the saving per patient for the National Healthcare System (NHS) by adding repeated-intermittent use of UPA 5 mg were the following: 1) €26 million (UPA 5 mg 4 cycles); 2) €17.6 million (UPA 5mg 6 cycles); 3) €8.9 million (UPA 5 mg 8 cycles); 4) €0.2 million (UPA 5 mg 10 cycles).
CONCLUSIONS: The results showed that repeated-intermittent use of UPA 5 mg for the long-term treatment of uterine fibroids has a favourable pharmacoeconomic profile up to 10 repeated cycles and may be a cost-saving treatment option for the NHS. Although the data are encouraging, more data are needed regarding the benefits and risks of long-term treatment with UPA.
METHODS: The pharmacoeconomic analysis was performed in two steps: 1) estimating an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER); 2) assuming a nationwide prediction of future expenditure in the Italian scenario. Effectiveness data were derived from the randomized-controlled trial, whilst quality of life and costs data were retrieved from the published literature.
RESULTS: In comparison with the use of UPA 5 mg before surgery, the values of ICER per patient were the following: 1) €20,600 euros (UPA 5 mg 4 cycles); 2) €26,884 (UPA 5mg 6 cycles); 3) €30,244 (UPA 5 mg 8 cycles); 4) €31,906 (UPA 5 mg 10 cycles). In comparison with the use of UPA 5 mg before surgery plus subsequent surgery, the saving per patient for the National Healthcare System (NHS) by adding repeated-intermittent use of UPA 5 mg were the following: 1) €26 million (UPA 5 mg 4 cycles); 2) €17.6 million (UPA 5mg 6 cycles); 3) €8.9 million (UPA 5 mg 8 cycles); 4) €0.2 million (UPA 5 mg 10 cycles).
CONCLUSIONS: The results showed that repeated-intermittent use of UPA 5 mg for the long-term treatment of uterine fibroids has a favourable pharmacoeconomic profile up to 10 repeated cycles and may be a cost-saving treatment option for the NHS. Although the data are encouraging, more data are needed regarding the benefits and risks of long-term treatment with UPA.