2021 年印度尼西亚马打兰大学医院住院病人使用氨氯地平和坎地沙坦的成本效益分析

IF 0.5 Q4 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES
Nunung Uswatun Hasanah, Ni Made Amelia Ratnata Dewi, Yoga Dwi Saputra
{"title":"2021 年印度尼西亚马打兰大学医院住院病人使用氨氯地平和坎地沙坦的成本效益分析","authors":"Nunung Uswatun Hasanah, Ni Made Amelia Ratnata Dewi, Yoga Dwi Saputra","doi":"10.46542/pe.2024.243.228233","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Hypertension requires ongoing treatment, which could be costly. There are different single-drug therapy options available, such as amlodipine or candesartan, which have varying costs.\nObjective: This study aimed to analyse the cost-effectiveness of amlodipine and candesartan in hypertensive patients by determining the Average Cost Effectiveness Ratio (ACER) and Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) ratios from a hospital perspective.\nMethod: This study used probability sampling of retrospective data from 2021 for the analysis. All inpatients who were given single therapy with amlodipine of 10 mg or candesartan of 16 mg were included. Direct medical costs were collected, including medicine and room costs, doctor visits, medical procedures, labour and administration. The effectiveness of the therapy was measured by blood pressure reduction from each therapy. ACER and ICER analyses were conducted to determine the most cost-effective therapy.\nResult: A total of 18 samples met the inclusion criteria, 14 patients received amlodipine therapy, and four received candesartan therapy. The results showed that the cost-effectiveness of antihypertensive therapy with amlodipine and candesartan, as measured by ACER, was IDR 74,851.15 and IDR 87,809.25, respectively. The ICER value obtained was IDR 362,768.\nConclusion: The results may suggest that amlodipine is more cost-effective than candesartan.","PeriodicalId":19944,"journal":{"name":"Pharmacy Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Cost-effectiveness analysis of amlodipine and candesartan in the inpatient setting at Mataram University Hospital in Indonesia, 2021\",\"authors\":\"Nunung Uswatun Hasanah, Ni Made Amelia Ratnata Dewi, Yoga Dwi Saputra\",\"doi\":\"10.46542/pe.2024.243.228233\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: Hypertension requires ongoing treatment, which could be costly. There are different single-drug therapy options available, such as amlodipine or candesartan, which have varying costs.\\nObjective: This study aimed to analyse the cost-effectiveness of amlodipine and candesartan in hypertensive patients by determining the Average Cost Effectiveness Ratio (ACER) and Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) ratios from a hospital perspective.\\nMethod: This study used probability sampling of retrospective data from 2021 for the analysis. All inpatients who were given single therapy with amlodipine of 10 mg or candesartan of 16 mg were included. Direct medical costs were collected, including medicine and room costs, doctor visits, medical procedures, labour and administration. The effectiveness of the therapy was measured by blood pressure reduction from each therapy. ACER and ICER analyses were conducted to determine the most cost-effective therapy.\\nResult: A total of 18 samples met the inclusion criteria, 14 patients received amlodipine therapy, and four received candesartan therapy. The results showed that the cost-effectiveness of antihypertensive therapy with amlodipine and candesartan, as measured by ACER, was IDR 74,851.15 and IDR 87,809.25, respectively. The ICER value obtained was IDR 362,768.\\nConclusion: The results may suggest that amlodipine is more cost-effective than candesartan.\",\"PeriodicalId\":19944,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Pharmacy Education\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Pharmacy Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.46542/pe.2024.243.228233\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pharmacy Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.46542/pe.2024.243.228233","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:高血压需要持续治疗,治疗费用可能很高。目前有不同的单药治疗方案,如氨氯地平或坎地沙坦,其成本各不相同:本研究旨在从医院角度出发,通过确定平均成本效益比(ACER)和增量成本效益比(ICER),分析氨氯地平和坎地沙坦在高血压患者中的成本效益:本研究采用概率抽样法对 2021 年的回顾性数据进行分析。所有接受 10 毫克氨氯地平或 16 毫克坎地沙坦单药治疗的住院患者均被纳入研究范围。收集的直接医疗费用包括药品和病房费用、医生出诊、医疗程序、人工和管理费用。治疗效果通过每种疗法的降压效果来衡量。进行 ACER 和 ICER 分析,以确定最具成本效益的疗法:共有 18 个样本符合纳入标准,14 名患者接受了氨氯地平治疗,4 名患者接受了坎地沙坦治疗。结果显示,根据 ACER 计算,使用氨氯地平和坎地沙坦进行降压治疗的成本效益分别为 74,851.15 印度卢比和 87,809.25 印度卢比。ICER值为362,768印度尼西亚盾:结果表明,氨氯地平比坎地沙坦更具成本效益。
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 analysis of amlodipine and candesartan in the inpatient setting at Mataram University Hospital in Indonesia, 2021
Background: Hypertension requires ongoing treatment, which could be costly. There are different single-drug therapy options available, such as amlodipine or candesartan, which have varying costs. Objective: This study aimed to analyse the cost-effectiveness of amlodipine and candesartan in hypertensive patients by determining the Average Cost Effectiveness Ratio (ACER) and Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) ratios from a hospital perspective. Method: This study used probability sampling of retrospective data from 2021 for the analysis. All inpatients who were given single therapy with amlodipine of 10 mg or candesartan of 16 mg were included. Direct medical costs were collected, including medicine and room costs, doctor visits, medical procedures, labour and administration. The effectiveness of the therapy was measured by blood pressure reduction from each therapy. ACER and ICER analyses were conducted to determine the most cost-effective therapy. Result: A total of 18 samples met the inclusion criteria, 14 patients received amlodipine therapy, and four received candesartan therapy. The results showed that the cost-effectiveness of antihypertensive therapy with amlodipine and candesartan, as measured by ACER, was IDR 74,851.15 and IDR 87,809.25, respectively. The ICER value obtained was IDR 362,768. Conclusion: The results may suggest that amlodipine is more cost-effective than candesartan.
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
Pharmacy Education
Pharmacy Education EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES-
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
20.00%
发文量
174
期刊介绍: Pharmacy Education journal provides a research, development and evaluation forum for communication between academic teachers, researchers and practitioners in professional and pharmacy education, with an emphasis on new and established teaching and learning methods, new curriculum and syllabus directions, educational outcomes, guidance on structuring courses and assessing achievement, and workforce development. It is a peer-reviewed online open access platform for the dissemination of new ideas in professional pharmacy education and workforce development. Pharmacy Education supports Open Access (OA): free, unrestricted online access to research outputs. Readers are able to access the Journal and individual published articles for free - there are no subscription fees or ''pay per view'' charges. Authors wishing to publish their work in Pharmacy Education do so without incurring any financial costs.
×
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