Pharmacoeconomic Analysis of Use of Parenteral Nutrition Medications in Kazakhstan's Health System’s Conditions

IF 0.5 4区医学 Q4 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH

Ethiopian Journal of Health Development Pub Date : 2021-01-01 DOI:10.32921/2225-9929-2021-2-42-41-51

G. Zagidullina, Anar Zhussupova, Zaid Zholdassоv, A. Tabarov, Z. Salpynov

{"title":"Pharmacoeconomic Analysis of Use of Parenteral Nutrition Medications in Kazakhstan's Health System’s Conditions","authors":"G. Zagidullina, Anar Zhussupova, Zaid Zholdassоv, A. Tabarov, Z. Salpynov","doi":"10.32921/2225-9929-2021-2-42-41-51","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: To study the clinical effectiveness, safety, and cost-effectiveness of parenteral nutrition medications. Methods. A modelling and a cost-effectiveness assessment were applied concerning the use of the NuTRIflex Lipid group medications. A comparative analysis of the parenteral nutrition medications’ effectiveness was performed, using cost-minimization, missed opportunities and budget impact analyses. The analysis was carried out by modelling in MS Excel Software. Results. The cost-minimization analysis demonstrated that NuTRIflex medications (NuTRIflex Lipid plus, NuTRIflex Lipid Special) were the least expensive options of parenteral nutrition for a minimum level of a daily dose’s cost as well as for a minimum level of costs for side-effects elimination. Based on the results of the missed opportunities analysis, the use of NuTRIflex Lipid peri medication will provide 55.8% (without side effects consideration) and 85.4% (with side effects consideration) more patients with parenteral nutrition, than that of Oliclinomel N4-550 E. From a payer’s perspective in the healthcare system, the budget impact analysis showed that the use of NuTRIflex Lipid peri will save costs equaling to 2.1 billion tenge versus Oliclinomel N4-550 E (on the assumption that side effects take place). Conclusion. It is impossible to make a definite conclusion on the superiority of NuTRIflex Lipid’s clinical effectiveness and safety over Oliclinomel and vice versa, since there are no direct comparative studies, assessing clinical effectiveness and safety in evidence-based medicine databases. More patients will receive parenteral nutrition if the NuTRIflex Lipid medication is used compared with the use of Oliclinomel, and it would be cost-saving from a payer’s perspective in Kazakhstan’s health system. Keywords: Nutritional support, parenteral nutrition, cost-minimization analysis, missed opportunity, budget impact analysis","PeriodicalId":11852,"journal":{"name":"Ethiopian Journal of Health Development","volume":"13 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ethiopian Journal of Health Development","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.32921/2225-9929-2021-2-42-41-51","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To study the clinical effectiveness, safety, and cost-effectiveness of parenteral nutrition medications. Methods. A modelling and a cost-effectiveness assessment were applied concerning the use of the NuTRIflex Lipid group medications. A comparative analysis of the parenteral nutrition medications’ effectiveness was performed, using cost-minimization, missed opportunities and budget impact analyses. The analysis was carried out by modelling in MS Excel Software. Results. The cost-minimization analysis demonstrated that NuTRIflex medications (NuTRIflex Lipid plus, NuTRIflex Lipid Special) were the least expensive options of parenteral nutrition for a minimum level of a daily dose’s cost as well as for a minimum level of costs for side-effects elimination. Based on the results of the missed opportunities analysis, the use of NuTRIflex Lipid peri medication will provide 55.8% (without side effects consideration) and 85.4% (with side effects consideration) more patients with parenteral nutrition, than that of Oliclinomel N4-550 E. From a payer’s perspective in the healthcare system, the budget impact analysis showed that the use of NuTRIflex Lipid peri will save costs equaling to 2.1 billion tenge versus Oliclinomel N4-550 E (on the assumption that side effects take place). Conclusion. It is impossible to make a definite conclusion on the superiority of NuTRIflex Lipid’s clinical effectiveness and safety over Oliclinomel and vice versa, since there are no direct comparative studies, assessing clinical effectiveness and safety in evidence-based medicine databases. More patients will receive parenteral nutrition if the NuTRIflex Lipid medication is used compared with the use of Oliclinomel, and it would be cost-saving from a payer’s perspective in Kazakhstan’s health system. Keywords: Nutritional support, parenteral nutrition, cost-minimization analysis, missed opportunity, budget impact analysis

查看原文本刊更多论文

哈萨克斯坦卫生系统条件下肠外营养药物使用的药物经济学分析

目的:探讨肠外营养药物的临床疗效、安全性和成本效益。方法。对NuTRIflex脂类组药物的使用进行了建模和成本效益评估。采用成本最小化、错失机会和预算影响分析对肠外营养药物的有效性进行了比较分析。在MS Excel软件中进行建模分析。结果。成本最小化分析表明，NuTRIflex药物(NuTRIflex脂质+，NuTRIflex脂质特殊)是肠外营养中最便宜的选择，日剂量成本最低，副作用消除成本最低。根据错失的机会分析结果，使用NuTRIflex脂质围期药物比Oliclinomel N4-550 e多提供55.8%(不考虑副作用)和85.4%(考虑副作用)的肠外营养患者。预算影响分析表明，与Oliclinomel n4 - 550e相比，使用NuTRIflex脂质保护剂将节省相当于21亿坚戈的成本(假设有副作用发生)。结论。由于没有在循证医学数据库中评估临床有效性和安全性的直接比较研究，因此无法确定NuTRIflex脂类的临床有效性和安全性优于Oliclinomel，反之亦然。与使用Oliclinomel相比，如果使用NuTRIflex脂类药物，更多的患者将获得肠外营养，并且从哈萨克斯坦卫生系统付款人的角度来看，这将节省成本。关键词:营养支持，肠外营养，成本最小化分析，错失机会，预算影响分析

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Ethiopian Journal of Health Development PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-

CiteScore

0.80

自引率

0.00%

发文量

审稿时长

>12 weeks

期刊介绍： The Ethiopian Journal of Health Development is a multi and interdisciplinary platform that provides space for public health experts in academics, policy and programs to share empirical evidence to contribute to health development agenda. We publish original research articles, reviews, brief communications and commentaries on public health issues, to inform current research, policy and practice in all areas of common interest to the scholars in the field of public health, social sciences and humanities, health practitioners and policy makers. The journal publishes material relevant to any aspect of public health from a wide range of fields: epidemiology, environmental health, health economics, reproductive health, behavioral sciences, nutrition, psychiatry, social pharmacy, medical anthropology, medical sociology, clinical psychology and wide arrays of social sciences and humanities. The journal publishes the following types of contribution: 1) Peer-reviewed original research articles and critical or analytical reviews in any area of social public health. These papers may be up to 3,500 words excluding abstract, tables, and references. Papers below this limit are preferred. 2) Peer-reviewed short reports of research findings on topical issues or published articles of between 2000 and 4000 words. 3) Brief communications, and commentaries debating on particular areas of focus, and published alongside, selected articles. 4) Special Issues bringing together collections of papers on a particular theme, and usually guest edited. 5) Editorial that flags critical issues of public health debate for policy, program and scientific consumption or further debate