ArticleGlobal & regional health technology assessment
A pharmacoeconomic analysis from Italian guidelines for the management of prolactinomas.
Article in Global & regional health technology assessment. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cost-Effectiveness of the Smaller-Incision New Generation Implantable Miniature Telescope for Late-Stage Age-Related Macular Degeneration.Ophthalmology science · 2026Article
- Budget Impact Analysis of Pulsed Field Versus Cryoballoon and Laser Procedures for Atrial Fibrillation in Italy.Clinical drug investigation · 2026Article
- Sex-related differences in healthcare utilization and costs among patients with pituitary adenomas.Pituitary · 2026Review
- Endoscopic surgery for noninvasive prolactinomas: A large multicenter, single-arm, retrospective study (PRLomaSaR).Endocrine · 2026Article
- Outcomes in surgical management of microprolactinomas: an international multi-institutional series.Pituitary · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
40 authors at 20 institutions in 5 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Prolactinoma, the most common pituitary adenoma, is usually treated with dopamine agonist (DA) therapy like cabergoline. Surgery is second-line therapy, and radiotherapy is used if surgical treatment fails or in relapsing macroprolactinoma. Objective: This study aimed to provide economic evidence for the management of prolactinoma in Italy, using a cost-of-illness and cost-utility analysis that considered various treatment options, including cabergoline, bromocriptine, temozolomide, radiation therapy, and surgical strategies. Methods: The researchers conducted a systematic literature review for each research question on scientific databases and surveyed a panel of experts for each therapeutic procedure's specific drivers that contributed to its total cost. Results: The average cost of the first year of treatment was €2,558.91 and €3,287.40 for subjects with microprolactinoma and macroprolactinoma, respectively. Follow-up costs from the second to the fifth year after initial treatment were €798.13 and €1,084.59 per year in both groups. Cabergoline had an adequate cost-utility profile, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €3,201.15 compared to bromocriptine, based on a willingness-to-pay of €40,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) in the reference economy. Endoscopic surgery was more cost-effective than cabergoline, with an ICER of €44,846.64. Considering a willingness-to-pay of €40,000/QALY, the baseline findings show cabergoline to have high cost utility and endoscopic surgery just a tad above that. Conclusions: Due to the favorable cost-utility profile and safety of surgical treatment, pituitary surgery should be considered more frequently as the initial therapeutic approach. This management choice could lead to better outcomes and an appropriate allocation of healthcare resources.
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.