Displaying all 6 publications

Abstract:
Sort:
  1. Dilokthornsakul P, Chaiyakunapruk N, Campbell JD
    J Asthma, 2017 01 02;54(1):17-23.
    PMID: 27284904 DOI: 10.1080/02770903.2016.1193601
    OBJECTIVE: To test the association of clinical evidence type, efficacy-based or effectiveness-based ("E"), versus whether or not asthma interventions' cost-effectiveness findings are favorable.

    DATA SOURCES: We conducted a systematic review of PubMed, EMBASE, Tufts CEA registry, Cochrane CENTRAL, and the UK National Health Services Economic Evaluation Database from 2009 to 2014.

    STUDY SELECTION: All cost-effectiveness studies evaluating asthma medication(s) were included. Clinical evidence type, "E," was classified as efficacy-based if the evidence was from an explanatory randomized controlled trial(s) or meta-analysis, while evidence from pragmatic trial(s) or observational study(s) was classified as effectiveness-based. We defined three times the World Health Organization cost-effectiveness willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold or less as a favorable cost-effectiveness finding. Logistic regression tested the likelihood of favorable versus unfavorable cost-effectiveness findings against the type of "E."

    RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: 25 cost-effectiveness studies were included. Ten (40.0%) studies were effectiveness-based, yet 15 (60.0%) studies were efficacy-based. Of 17 studies using endpoints that could be compared to WTP threshold, 7 out of 8 (87.5%) effectiveness-based studies yielded favorable cost-effectiveness results, whereas 4 out of 9 (44.4%) efficacy-based studies yielded favorable cost-effectiveness results. The adjusted odds ratio was 15.12 (95% confidence interval; 0.59 to 388.75) for effectiveness-based versus efficacy-based achieving favorable cost-effectiveness findings. More asthma cost-effectiveness studies used efficacy-based evidence. Studies using effectiveness-based evidence trended toward being more likely to disseminate favorable cost-effective findings than those using efficacy. Health policy decision makers should pay attention to the type of clinical evidence used in cost-effectiveness studies for accurate interpretation and application.

    Matched MeSH terms: Cost-Benefit Analysis/methods*
  2. Kamal MA, Smith PF, Chaiyakunapruk N, Wu DBC, Pratoomsoot C, Lee KKC, et al.
    Br J Clin Pharmacol, 2017 07;83(7):1580-1594.
    PMID: 28176362 DOI: 10.1111/bcp.13229
    AIMS: A modular interdisciplinary platform was developed to investigate the economic impact of oseltamivir treatment by dosage regimen under simulated influenza pandemic scenarios.

    METHODS: The pharmacology module consisted of a pharmacokinetic distribution of oseltamivir carboxylate daily area under the concentration-time curve at steady state (simulated for 75 mg and 150 mg twice daily regimens for 5 days) and a pharmacodynamic distribution of viral shedding duration obtained from phase II influenza inoculation data. The epidemiological module comprised a susceptible, exposed, infected, recovered (SEIR) model to which drug effect on the basic reproductive number (R0 ), a measure of transmissibility, was linked by reduction of viral shedding duration. The number of infected patients per population of 100 000 susceptible individuals was simulated for a series of pandemic scenarios, varying oseltamivir dose, R0 (1.9 vs. 2.7), and drug uptake (25%, 50%, and 80%). The number of infected patients for each scenario was entered into the health economics module, a decision analytic model populated with branch probabilities, disease utility, costs of hospitalized patients developing complications, and case-fatality rates. Change in quality-adjusted life years was determined relative to base case.

    RESULTS: Oseltamivir 75 mg relative to no treatment reduced the median number of infected patients, increased change in quality-adjusted life years by deaths averted, and was cost-saving under all scenarios; 150 mg relative to 75 mg was not cost effective in low transmissibility scenarios but was cost saving in high transmissibility scenarios.

    CONCLUSION: This methodological study demonstrates proof of concept that the disciplines of pharmacology, disease epidemiology and health economics can be linked in a single quantitative framework.

    Matched MeSH terms: Cost-Benefit Analysis/methods*
  3. Chong HY, Saokaew S, Dumrongprat K, Permsuwan U, Wu DB, Sritara P, et al.
    Thromb Res, 2014 Dec;134(6):1278-84.
    PMID: 25456732 DOI: 10.1016/j.thromres.2014.10.006
    Pharmacogenetic (PGx) test is a useful tool for guiding physician on an initiation of an optimal warfarin dose. To implement of such strategy, the evidence on the economic value is needed. This study aimed to determine the cost-effectiveness of PGx-guided warfarin dosing compared with usual care (UC).
    Matched MeSH terms: Cost-Benefit Analysis/methods*
  4. Chongmelaxme B, Chaiyakunapruk N, Dilokthornsakul P
    J Med Econ, 2019 Jun;22(6):554-566.
    PMID: 30663455 DOI: 10.1080/13696998.2019.1572014
    Aims: Non-adherence is associated with poor clinical outcomes among patients with asthma. While cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) is increasingly used to inform value assessment of the interventions, most do not take into account adherence in the analyses. This study aims to: (1) Understand the extent of studies considering adherence as part of the economic analyses, and (2) summarize the methods of incorporating adherence in the economic models. Materials and methods: A literature search was performed from the inception to February 2018 using four databases: PubMed, EMBASE, NHS EED, and the Tufts CEA registry. Decision model-based CEA of asthma were identified. Outcomes of interest were the number of studies incorporating adherence in the economic models, and the incorporating methods. All data were extracted using a standardized data collection form. Results: From 1,587 articles, 23 studies were decision model-based CEA of asthma, of which four CEA (17.4%) incorporated adherence in the analyses. Only the method of incorporating adherence by adjusting treatment effectiveness according to adherence levels was demonstrated in this review. Two approaches were used to derive the associations between adherence and effectiveness. The first approach was to apply a mathematical formula, developed by an expert panel, and the second was to extrapolate the associations from previous published studies. The adherence-adjusted effectiveness was then incorporated in the economic models. Conclusions: A very low number of CEA of asthma incorporated adherence in the analyses. All the CEA adjusted treatment effectiveness according to adherence levels, applied to the economic models.
    Matched MeSH terms: Cost-Benefit Analysis/methods*
  5. Permsuwan U, Dilokthornsakul P, Thavorn K, Saokaew S, Chaiyakunapruk N
    J Med Econ, 2017 Feb;20(2):171-181.
    PMID: 27645706 DOI: 10.1080/13696998.2016.1238386
    OBJECTIVE: With a high prevalence of chronic kidney disease (CKD) in type 2 diabetes (T2DM) in Thailand, the appropriate treatment for the patients has become a major concern. This study aimed to evaluate long-term cost-effective of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor monothearpy vs sulfonylurea (SFU) monotherapy in people with T2DM and CKD.

    METHODS: A validated IMS CORE Diabetes Model was used to estimate the long-term costs and outcomes. The efficacy parameters were identified and synthesized using a systematic review and meta-analysis. Baseline characteristics and cost parameters were obtained from published studies and hospital databases in Thailand. Costs were expressed in 2014 US Dollars. Outcomes were presented as an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to estimate parameter uncertainty.

    RESULTS: From a societal perspective, treatment with DPP-4 inhibitors yielded more quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) (0.024) at a higher cost (>66,000 Thai baht (THB) or >1,829.27 USD) per person than SFU, resulting in the ICER of >2.7 million THB/QALY (>74,833.70 USD/QALY). The cost-effectiveness results were mainly driven by differences in HbA1c reduction, hypoglycemic events, and drug acquisition cost of DPP-4 inhibitors. At the ceiling ratio of 160,000 THB/QALY (4,434.59 USD/QALY), the probability that DPP-4 inhibitors are cost-effective compared to SFU was less than 10%.

    CONCLUSIONS: Compared to SFU, DPP-4 inhibitor monotherapy is not a cost-effective treatment for people with T2DM and CKD in Thailand.

    Matched MeSH terms: Cost-Benefit Analysis/methods*
  6. Kotirum S, Chongmelaxme B, Chaiyakunapruk N
    J Thromb Thrombolysis, 2017 Feb;43(2):252-262.
    PMID: 27704332 DOI: 10.1007/s11239-016-1433-5
    To analyze the cost-utility of oral dabigatran etexilate, enoxaparin sodium injection, and no intervention for venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis after total hip or knee replacement (THR/TKR) surgery among Thai patients. A cost-utility analysis using a decision tree model was conducted using societal and healthcare payers' perspectives to simulate relevant costs and health outcomes covering a 3-month time horizon. Costs were adjusted to year 2014. The willingness-to-pay threshold of THB 160,000 (USD 4926) was used. One-way sensitivity and probabilistic sensitivity analyses using a Monte Carlo simulation were performed. Compared with no VTE prophylaxis, dabigatran and enoxaparin after THR and TKR surgery incurred higher costs and increased quality adjusted life years (QALYs). However, their incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were high above the willingness to pay. Compared with enoxaparin, dabigatran for THR/TKR lowered VTE complications but increased bleeding cases; dabigatran was cost-saving by reducing the costs [by THB 3809.96 (USD 117.30) for THR] and producing more QALYs gained (by 0.00013 for THR). Dabigatran (vs. enoxaparin) had a 98 % likelihood of being cost effective. Dabigatran is cost-saving compared to enoxaparin for VTE prophylaxis after THR or TKR under the Thai context. However, both medications are not cost-effective compared to no thromboprophylaxis.
    Matched MeSH terms: Cost-Benefit Analysis/methods*
Filters
Contact Us

Please provide feedback to Administrator (afdal@afpm.org.my)

External Links