Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Filter
Add more filters











Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
Eur J Hosp Pharm ; 27(2): 100-102, 2020 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32133136

ABSTRACT

Objective: Pulmonary arterial hypertension is a rare and progressive respiratory disease characterised by high blood pressure and vascular resistance producing right ventricular fatigue. In Italy, pulmonary hypertension can be treated with different drugs available on the market at different costs, and in the Marche region distributed exclusively by hospital pharmacies. The present study examined in an area of the Marche region the use of drugs specifically indicated for pulmonary hypertension, and evaluated how the introduction of the generic bosentan might lower pharmaceutical costs for the healthcare budget. Methods: The study examined oral administration prescriptions and costs using data from the Apotheke Gold (Record Data) database from 1 January 2012 to 31 August 2017. Results: Annually (from 1 January 2012 to 31 August 2017), an average of 4.83 patients were treated (prevalence of 102.35 cases per 1 million residents) with ambrisentan (Volibris), bosentan (Tracleer), macitentan (Opsumit), tadalafil (Adcirca) or sildenafil (Revatio). The total expenditure during the 5-year 8-month period was €472 405. Ambrisentan was by far the most expensive product overall, with a total expenditure of €222 380 for the period studied (a daily cost of €67.39), even though Tracleer had the highest cost for a day of treatment (a daily cost of €94.48, but a total expenditure of €163 976 for the period, due to its more recent marketing). Providing patients with the generic form bosentan in place of Tracleer would lower the costs dramatically. A very significant annual savings per patient of approximately €31 879 would be achieved, a striking 92.4% reduction in costs. Conclusion: The prevalence of pulmonary arterial hypertension reported for Camerino and its surrounding area in the Marches region is quite high compared with that reported by other authors for France and Scotland. The introduction of the generic bosentan would cut costs drastically. It is to be hoped that centralised procurement at the regional level would bring further savings.


Subject(s)
Antihypertensive Agents/economics , Bosentan/economics , Cost Savings/economics , Drug Costs , Drugs, Generic/economics , Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension/economics , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Antihypertensive Agents/therapeutic use , Bosentan/therapeutic use , Cost Savings/trends , Drug Costs/trends , Drugs, Generic/therapeutic use , Female , Humans , Italy/epidemiology , Male , Middle Aged , Pharmacy Service, Hospital/economics , Pharmacy Service, Hospital/trends , Prevalence , Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension/drug therapy , Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension/epidemiology
2.
Can Respir J ; 2018: 1015239, 2018.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30581511

ABSTRACT

Objectives: Although many studies have reported on the cost-effectiveness of bosentan for treating pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH), a systematic review of economic evaluations of bosentan is currently lacking. Objective evaluation of current pharmacoeconomic evidence can assist decision makers in determining the appropriate place in therapy of a new medication. Methods: Systematic literature searches were conducted in English-language databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, EconLit databases, and the Cochrane Library) and Chinese-language databases (China National Knowledge Infrastructure, WanFang Data, and Chongqing VIP) to identify studies assessing the cost-effectiveness of bosentan for PAH treatments. Results: A total of 8 published studies were selected for inclusion. Among them were two studies comparing bosentan with epoprostenol and treprostinil. Both results indicated that bosentan was more cost-effective than epoprostenol, while the results of bosentan and treprostinil were not consistent. Four studies compared bosentan with other endothelin receptor antagonists, which indicated ambrisentan might be the drug of choice for its economic advantages and improved safety profile. Only two economic evaluations provided data to compare bosentan versus sildenafil, and the results favored the use of sildenafil in PAH patients. Four studies compared bosentan with conventional, supportive, or palliative therapy, and whether bosentan was cost-effective was uncertain. Conclusions: Bosentan may represent a more cost-effective option compared with epoprostenol and conventional or palliative therapy. There was unanimous agreement that bosentan was not a cost-effective front-line therapy compared with sildenafil and other endothelin receptor antagonists. However, high-quality cost-effectiveness analyses that utilize long-term follow-up data and have no conflicts of interest are still needed.


Subject(s)
Bosentan/therapeutic use , Endothelin Receptor Antagonists/therapeutic use , Hypertension, Pulmonary/drug therapy , Antihypertensive Agents/economics , Antihypertensive Agents/therapeutic use , Bosentan/economics , Cost-Benefit Analysis , Endothelin Receptor Antagonists/economics , Epoprostenol/analogs & derivatives , Epoprostenol/therapeutic use , Humans , Phenylpropionates/economics , Phenylpropionates/therapeutic use , Pyridazines/economics , Pyridazines/therapeutic use , Sildenafil Citrate/therapeutic use , Vasodilator Agents/economics , Vasodilator Agents/therapeutic use
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL