Publication:
Cost-utility analysis of drug treatments in patients with polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy in Thailand

dc.contributor.authorSermsiri Sangroongruangsrien_US
dc.contributor.authorUsa Chaikledkaewen_US
dc.contributor.authorPrut Hanusahaen_US
dc.contributor.authorTanapat Ratanapakornen_US
dc.contributor.authorPaisan Ruamviboonsuken_US
dc.contributor.otherFaculty of Medicine, Khon Kaen Universityen_US
dc.contributor.otherRangsit Universityen_US
dc.contributor.otherFaculty of Medicine Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol Universityen_US
dc.contributor.otherMahidol Universityen_US
dc.date.accessioned2022-08-04T08:33:03Z
dc.date.available2022-08-04T08:33:03Z
dc.date.issued2021-01-01en_US
dc.description.abstractPurpose: The aim of this study was to estimate the cost-utility and budget impact of pharmacological treatments for the eye with polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy (PCV) in Thailand. Methods: A Markov model-based cost-utility analysis (CUA) and budget impact analysis were conducted. The lifetime cost and outcomes of PCV treatments were estimated. We discounted costs and outcomes at 3% per annum. Parameters were estimated using data from published literatures, local cost and utility data, and epidemiology data among Thai patients. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to account for parameter uncertainty. Results: Intravitreal bevacizumab (IVB) resulted in the lowest lifetime cost, followed by IVB plus verteporfin photodynamic therapy (IVB+vPDT) and intravitreal aflibercept (IVA). The combination of IVB or intravitreal ranibizumab (IVR) and verteporfin photodynamic therapy (IVB+vPDT or IVR+vPDT) yielded the highest quality-adjusted life-years (QALY). When compared with IVB from a societal perspective, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for patients with PCV receiving IVB+vPDT, IVR+vPDT, IVA were 10,304; 54,135; and 82,738 the United States dollar (USD) per QALY gained, respectively. At the Thai societal willingness to pay threshold of 4884 USD, IVB had the highest probability of being cost-effective (99%) followed by IVB+vPDT (1%). IVB+vPDT could be a cost-effective strategy and required a budget of 12.61 million USD over five fiscal years when the price of verteporfin reduced by approximately 45%. Conclusion: None of the drug treatments for PCV was cost-effective in the Thai context. The decreased price of verteporfin is required to support the inclusion of IVB+vPDT in the Thai National List of Essential Medicines for the treatment of PCV.en_US
dc.identifier.citationClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research. Vol.13, (2021), 917-926en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.2147/CEOR.S340570en_US
dc.identifier.issn11786981en_US
dc.identifier.other2-s2.0-85118967746en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/20.500.14594/76880
dc.rightsMahidol Universityen_US
dc.rights.holderSCOPUSen_US
dc.source.urihttps://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85118967746&origin=inwarden_US
dc.subjectEconomics, Econometrics and Financeen_US
dc.subjectMedicineen_US
dc.titleCost-utility analysis of drug treatments in patients with polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy in Thailanden_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dspace.entity.typePublication
mu.datasource.scopushttps://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85118967746&origin=inwarden_US

Files

Collections