使用肝素和依诺肝素治疗 COVID-19 相关凝血病的成本效益和副作用

Nurul Iska Ulmarika Idris, A. Purba, Arifa Mustika, A. Veterini, M. Y. Alsagaff, Mohammad Qorib
{"title":"使用肝素和依诺肝素治疗 COVID-19 相关凝血病的成本效益和副作用","authors":"Nurul Iska Ulmarika Idris, A. Purba, Arifa Mustika, A. Veterini, M. Y. Alsagaff, Mohammad Qorib","doi":"10.1177/0976500x231217140","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"To analyze the cost-effectiveness and side effects of Heparin and Enoxaparin anticoagulants in patients with COVID-19-associated coagulopathy (CAC). This was an observational study with a retrospective design of CAC patients from May 2020 to May 2022 in Surabaya, Indonesia, who received Heparin and Enoxaparin. Effectiveness was comprehensively evaluated as clinical outcomes including mortality, length of stay (LOS), laboratory results, and side effects. Pharmacoeconomic evaluation was analyzed by constructing Decision Tree modeling followed by Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (CEA) considering Quality-Adjusted Life Year (QALY), and Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio (ICER). In addition, probability sensitivity analysis was performed to consider the cost-effective intervention. A number of 274 samples were included from Medical Records and finance reports. Heparin has a higher mortality rate compared to Enoxaparin (13.9% vs. 23.9; p = 0.040), with no difference in the side effects ( p = 0.056). D-Dimer reported a significant change in values after receiving Heparin (2271.01 ± 4595.50 ng/mL) and Enoxaparin (2140.95 ± 5681.98 ng/mL), p = 0.019. Enoxaparin was more cost-effective in pharmacoeconomic analysis, with a US$130.58/QALY ACER value, while Heparin was US$138.67/QALY. Enoxaparin therapy has better effectiveness, while side effects and costs are similar to Heparin. However, Enoxaparin is far more cost-effective to use against CAC conditions than Heparin.","PeriodicalId":16780,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Pharmacology and Pharmacotherapeutics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Cost-effectiveness and Side Effects of Using Heparin and Enoxaparin as a Treatment for COVID-19-associated Coagulopathy\",\"authors\":\"Nurul Iska Ulmarika Idris, A. Purba, Arifa Mustika, A. Veterini, M. Y. Alsagaff, Mohammad Qorib\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/0976500x231217140\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"To analyze the cost-effectiveness and side effects of Heparin and Enoxaparin anticoagulants in patients with COVID-19-associated coagulopathy (CAC). This was an observational study with a retrospective design of CAC patients from May 2020 to May 2022 in Surabaya, Indonesia, who received Heparin and Enoxaparin. Effectiveness was comprehensively evaluated as clinical outcomes including mortality, length of stay (LOS), laboratory results, and side effects. Pharmacoeconomic evaluation was analyzed by constructing Decision Tree modeling followed by Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (CEA) considering Quality-Adjusted Life Year (QALY), and Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio (ICER). In addition, probability sensitivity analysis was performed to consider the cost-effective intervention. A number of 274 samples were included from Medical Records and finance reports. Heparin has a higher mortality rate compared to Enoxaparin (13.9% vs. 23.9; p = 0.040), with no difference in the side effects ( p = 0.056). D-Dimer reported a significant change in values after receiving Heparin (2271.01 ± 4595.50 ng/mL) and Enoxaparin (2140.95 ± 5681.98 ng/mL), p = 0.019. Enoxaparin was more cost-effective in pharmacoeconomic analysis, with a US$130.58/QALY ACER value, while Heparin was US$138.67/QALY. Enoxaparin therapy has better effectiveness, while side effects and costs are similar to Heparin. However, Enoxaparin is far more cost-effective to use against CAC conditions than Heparin.\",\"PeriodicalId\":16780,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Pharmacology and Pharmacotherapeutics\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Pharmacology and Pharmacotherapeutics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/0976500x231217140\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Pharmacology and Pharmacotherapeutics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0976500x231217140","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

分析肝素和依诺肝素抗凝药对 COVID-19 相关凝血病(CAC)患者的成本效益和副作用。这是一项采用回顾性设计的观察性研究,研究对象是 2020 年 5 月至 2022 年 5 月期间在印度尼西亚泗水接受肝素和依诺肝素治疗的 CAC 患者。研究根据死亡率、住院时间(LOS)、实验室结果和副作用等临床结果对疗效进行了全面评估。药物经济学评估通过构建决策树模型进行分析,然后进行成本效益分析(CEA),考虑质量调整生命年(QALY)和增量成本效益比(ICER)。此外,还进行了概率敏感性分析,以考虑干预措施的成本效益。从医疗记录和财务报告中纳入了 274 个样本。与依诺肝素相比,肝素的死亡率更高(13.9% 对 23.9;p = 0.040),副作用方面没有差异(p = 0.056)。接受肝素(2271.01 ± 4595.50 ng/mL)和依诺肝素(2140.95 ± 5681.98 ng/mL)治疗后,D-二聚体的值有明显变化,p = 0.019。在药物经济学分析中,依诺肝素更具成本效益,其 ACER 值为 130.58 美元/QALY,而肝素为 138.67 美元/QALY。依诺肝素的疗效更好,而副作用和成本与肝素相似。然而,与肝素相比,依诺肝素治疗 CAC 的成本效益要高得多。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Cost-effectiveness and Side Effects of Using Heparin and Enoxaparin as a Treatment for COVID-19-associated Coagulopathy
To analyze the cost-effectiveness and side effects of Heparin and Enoxaparin anticoagulants in patients with COVID-19-associated coagulopathy (CAC). This was an observational study with a retrospective design of CAC patients from May 2020 to May 2022 in Surabaya, Indonesia, who received Heparin and Enoxaparin. Effectiveness was comprehensively evaluated as clinical outcomes including mortality, length of stay (LOS), laboratory results, and side effects. Pharmacoeconomic evaluation was analyzed by constructing Decision Tree modeling followed by Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (CEA) considering Quality-Adjusted Life Year (QALY), and Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio (ICER). In addition, probability sensitivity analysis was performed to consider the cost-effective intervention. A number of 274 samples were included from Medical Records and finance reports. Heparin has a higher mortality rate compared to Enoxaparin (13.9% vs. 23.9; p = 0.040), with no difference in the side effects ( p = 0.056). D-Dimer reported a significant change in values after receiving Heparin (2271.01 ± 4595.50 ng/mL) and Enoxaparin (2140.95 ± 5681.98 ng/mL), p = 0.019. Enoxaparin was more cost-effective in pharmacoeconomic analysis, with a US$130.58/QALY ACER value, while Heparin was US$138.67/QALY. Enoxaparin therapy has better effectiveness, while side effects and costs are similar to Heparin. However, Enoxaparin is far more cost-effective to use against CAC conditions than Heparin.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信