ReviewTheScientificWorldJournal2015
Haemophilia A: pharmacoeconomic review of prophylaxis treatment versus on-demand.
Review in TheScientificWorldJournal, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Economic Burden of Haemophilia from a Societal Perspective: A Scoping Review.PharmacoEconomics - open · 2025Review
- Evaluation of Safety and Efficacy of Emicizumab Prophylaxis in Egyptian Pediatric Patients with Hemophilia ATurkish journal of haematology : official journal of Turkish Society of Haematology · 2024Article
- An efficient and effective ambulatory service model for severe hemophilia-A patients; an introduction to a novel home care model.American journal of blood research · 2021Article
- Challenges facing community-dwelling adults with hemophilia: Implications for community-based adult education and nursing.The Journal of international medical research · 2020Article
- FAR-BENE Study: pharmacoeconomics and well-being in hemophilia. Monitoring outcomes in light of pharmaceutical expenditure with focus on patients undergoing therapeutic switch.Blood transfusion = Trasfusione del sangueArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesHaemophilia A is a congenital disorder of coagulation that mainly affects males and causes a considerable use of resources, especially when hemophilic patients are treated with prophylaxis. The aim of the present review was to discuss and appraise the methodological aspects and results of published economic evaluations of haemophilia A treatments in the last decade.
methodsThe literature search, performed by consulting four engines, covered studies published between 2002 and 2014. Full economic evaluations published in English language were identified and included in the review. A quality assessment of the studies was also carried out based on Drummond's checklist.
resultsAfter careful evaluations of the identified records, 5 studies were reviewed. Primary and secondary prophylaxis resulted cost-effective compared to on-demand therapy: the ICER of primary prophylaxis ranged from € 40.236 to € 59.315/QALY gained, while the ICER of secondary prophylaxis was € 40.229/QALY gained. Furthermore, 60% were high quality and 40% were medium quality studies.
conclusionsThe review underlines the cost-effectiveness of prophylaxis versus on-demand treatment and the different methodological approaches applied. Further economic evaluations are required with models that reflect the clinical reality and consumption of resources in each country.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.