ﺑﺎﺯﮔﺸﺖ ﺑﻪ ﺻﻔﺤﻪ ﻗﺒﻠﯽ
خرید پکیج
تعداد آیتم قابل مشاهده باقیمانده : 3 مورد
نسخه الکترونیک
medimedia.ir

Cost-utility league table (example data for cost-effectiveness analyses)

Cost-utility league table (example data for cost-effectiveness analyses)
For illustration purposes only
Medical intervention Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio
($ per discounted quality-adjusted life year gained unless indicated otherwise)
No prophylaxis versus intravenous saline for prevention of contrast-induced nephropathy in high risk patients[1] No prophylaxis is cost-saving
Publicly funded opiate use disorder treatment versus standard care[2] Cost-saving
Individualized glycemic control versus uniform control[3] Cost-saving
Novel oral anticoagulant versus warfarin[4] Cost-saving to $2073 (assuming £1 = $1.4)
Achieving UNAIDS 90-90-90 global HIV treatment target aims in South Africa over 10 years[5] $1260 per life year gained
Statin therapy for 1-year risk threshold of 7.5% versus 10% for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease[6] $37,000
Intensive versus standard blood pressure control in Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT)[7] $47,000
Risk-targeted low-dose CT versus NLST screening[8] $53,000 to $75,000
Statin-plus-PCSK9 inhibitor versus statin-plus-ezetimibe for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and LDL-C ≥70 mg/mL[9] $450,000
Initial biologic therapy versus triple therapy for active rheumatoid arthritis[10] $521,520
UNAIDS: Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS; CT: computed tomography; NLST: National Lung Screening Trial; PCSK9: proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9; LDL-C: low-density lipoprotein cholesterol.
References:
  1. Nijssen EC, Rennenberg RJ, Nelemans PJ, et al. Prophylactic hydration to protect renal function from intravascular iodinated contrast material in patients at high risk of contrast-induced nephropathy (AMACING): A prospective, randomised, phase 3, controlled, open-label, non-inferiority trial. Lancet 2017; 389:1312.
  2. Krebs E, Enns B, Evans E, et al. Cost-effectiveness of publicly funded treatment of opioid use disorder in California. Ann Intern Med 2018; 168:10.
  3. Laiteerapong N, Cooper JM, Skandari MR, et al. Individualized glycemic control for U.S. adults with type 2 diabetes: A cost-effectiveness analysis. Ann Intern Med 2018; 168:170.
  4. Lopez-Lopez JA, Sterne JAC, Thom HHZ, et al. Oral anticoagulants for prevention of stroke in atrial fibrillation: Systematic review, network meta-analysis, and cost effectiveness analysis. BMJ 2017; 359:j5058.
  5. Walensky RP, Borre ED, Bekker LG, et al. The anticipated clinical and economic effects of 90-90-90 in South Africa. Ann of Intern Med 2016; 165:325.
  6. Pandya A, Sy S, Cho S, et al. Cost-effectiveness of 10-year risk thresholds for initiation of statin therapy for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease. JAMA 2015; 314:142.
  7. Bress AP, Bellows BK, King JB, et al. Cost-effectiveness of intensive versus standard blood-pressure control. N Engl J of Med 2017; 377:745.
  8. Kumar V, Cohen JT, van Klaveren D, et al. Risk-targeted lung cancer screening: A cost-effectiveness analysis. Ann Intern Med 2018; 168:161.
  9. Kazi DS, Penko J, Coxson PG, et al. Updated cost-effectiveness analysis of PCSK9 inhibitors based on the results of the FOURIER trial. JAMA 2017; 318:748.
  10. Bansback N, Phibbs CS, Sun H, et al. Triple therapy versus biologic therapy for active rheumatoid arthritis: A cost-effectiveness analysis. Ann of Intern Med 2017; 167:8.
Graphic 69531 Version 6.0

آیا می خواهید مدیلیب را به صفحه اصلی خود اضافه کنید؟