ArticleGlobal & regional health technology assessment
Cost minimization analysis of subcutaneous and intravenous immunoglobulin treatment in Italy.
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. 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.
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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Human immunoglobulins are the standard of care for patients with immunodeficiencies and represent a first-line treatment for chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (CIDP). This study aimed to evaluate costs associated with facilitated subcutaneous (fSCIG), conventional subcutaneous (cSCIG), and intravenous (IVIG) administration of immunoglobulin in patients with primary or secondary immunodeficiency (PID and SID, respectively) and in patients with CIDP in Italy. Methods: A cost-minimization analysis from a societal perspective was developed, considering a one-year follow-up. Direct costs included acquisition and administration costs, while indirect costs were evaluated considering productivity loss due to in-hospital IVIG using a Human Capital Approach. The posology considered for immunodeficiency disorders and CIDP was obtained from observational studies and clinical trials, respectively. Subcutaneous and intravenous administration costs were obtained from published literature. Scenario analyses were conducted to test the key assumptions of the model. Results: This study indicates a potential reduction of annual societal expenditure in Italy of approximately €2,145 and €1,605 with fSCIG treatment in PID patients compared to cSCIG and IVIG, respectively. In SID patients, fSCIG would result in a reduction of societal expenditure of approximately €2,145 and €2,071 compared to cSCIG and IVIG. For CIDP patients, fSCIG treatment would result in a reduction of societal expenditure of €8,060 and €15,873 compared to cSCIG and IVIG, respectively. Conclusion: The use of fSCIG for patients with PIDs, SIDs or CIDP could lead to a reduction in the direct and indirect costs associated with the treatment of patients.
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.