ArticleClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR2021
Cost-Utility Analysis of Drug Treatments in Patients with Polypoidal Choroidal Vasculopathy in Thailand.
Article in ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe aim of this study was to estimate the cost-utility and budget impact of pharmacological treatments for the eye with polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy (PCV) in Thailand.
methodsA Markov model-based cost-utility analysis (CUA) and budget impact analysis were conducted. The lifetime cost and outcomes of PCV treatments were estimated. We discounted costs and outcomes at 3% per annum. Parameters were estimated using data from published literatures, local cost and utility data, and epidemiology data among Thai patients. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to account for parameter uncertainty.
resultsIntravitreal bevacizumab (IVB) resulted in the lowest lifetime cost, followed by IVB plus verteporfin photodynamic therapy (IVB+vPDT) and intravitreal aflibercept (IVA). The combination of IVB or intravitreal ranibizumab (IVR) and verteporfin photodynamic therapy (IVB+vPDT or IVR+vPDT) yielded the highest quality-adjusted life-years (QALY). When compared with IVB from a societal perspective, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for patients with PCV receiving IVB+vPDT, IVR+vPDT, IVA were 10,304; 54,135; and 82,738 the United States dollar (USD) per QALY gained, respectively. At the Thai societal willingness to pay threshold of 4884 USD, IVB had the highest probability of being cost-effective (99%) followed by IVB+vPDT (1%). IVB+vPDT could be a cost-effective strategy and required a budget of 12.61 million USD over five fiscal years when the price of verteporfin reduced by approximately 45%.
conclusionNone of the drug treatments for PCV was cost-effective in the Thai context. The decreased price of verteporfin is required to support the inclusion of IVB+vPDT in the Thai National List of Essential Medicines for the treatment of PCV.
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.