Author(s): Krupanidhi Karunanithi, Aditya. J, Angaleshwari. M, Anna Joseph, P. Sharmila Nirojini

Email(s): sharmilapractice@gmail.com

DOI: 10.52711/0974-360X.2024.00337   

Address: Krupanidhi Karunanithi1, Aditya. J2, Angaleshwari. M3, Anna Joseph4, P. Sharmila Nirojini5*
1Assistant professor, Emergency Medicine Department, Swamy Vivekanadha Medical College Hospital and Research Institute.
2Pharm D Intern, Swamy Vivekanandha College of Pharmacy, Namakkal, Tamil Nadu, India. (Affiliated to the Dr. M.G.R. Medical University)
3Pharm D Intern, Swamy Vivekanandha College of Pharmacy, Namakkal, Tamil Nadu, India. (Affiliated to the Dr. M.G.R. Medical University)
4Pharm D Intern, Swamy Vivekanandha College of Pharmacy, Namakkal, Tamil Nadu, India. (Affiliated to the Dr. M.G.R. Medical University)
5Professor and HOD, Department of Pharmacy Practice, Swamy Vivekanandha College of Pharmacy, Namakkal, Tamil Nadu, India (Affiliated to the Dr. M.G.R. Medical University)
*Corresponding Author

Published In:   Volume - 17,      Issue - 5,     Year - 2024


ABSTRACT:
Objectives: The study tackles evaluating and comparing the cost-effectiveness of Conservative and Interventional Management in patients with CAD from the payer’s perspective concerning real-world data. Methodology: The pharmacoeconomic analysis consisted of an ICER calculation quadrant and a decision tree that reflected the most economically advantageous course of treatment, whether it be conservative or interventional. The costs for the interventional and conservative therapy were taken from The Government of Tamil Nadu, the Chief Minister's Comprehensive Health Insurance Scheme, and the Pharmacy of the multispecialty hospital, and the SF-36 Questionnaire was used to measure patients' health-related quality of life. Result: 126 patients were included. The SF-36 score 1 and 3 QoL comparison between conservative and interventional management had a high level of significance (p values = 0.00349 and 0.0035, respectively). When comparing the costs of conservative and interventional management, the results were extremely significant (p-value 0.001). For patients receiving interventional management, the average medical expense is higher (Rs 1, 41, 784 vs. Rs 38, 388). Patients with CAD receiving conservative therapy had an average HRQol score that was higher (52.32 vs. 39.64). The overall ICER of conservative versus interventional management in terms of life years saved was Rs 8,154. Conclusion: CAD patients receiving Interventional management has higher average medical cost than conservative management. CAD patients receiving conservative management had a higher average HRQol. ICER of conservative versus interventional management in all age groups was Rs 8,154/life years saved. Conservative management was more Cost- Effective than interventional.


Cite this article:
Krupanidhi Karunanithi, Aditya. J, Angaleshwari. M, Anna Joseph, P. Sharmila Nirojini. Research Journal of Pharmacy and Technology. 2024; 17(5):2133.8. doi: 10.52711/0974-360X.2024.00337

Cite(Electronic):
Krupanidhi Karunanithi, Aditya. J, Angaleshwari. M, Anna Joseph, P. Sharmila Nirojini. Research Journal of Pharmacy and Technology. 2024; 17(5):2133.8. doi: 10.52711/0974-360X.2024.00337   Available on: https://www.rjptonline.org/AbstractView.aspx?PID=2024-17-5-33


REFERENCES:
1.    Akazawa M, Sindelar JL, Paltiel AD. Economic costs of influenza‐related work absenteeism. Value in Health. 2003 Mar;6(2):107-15
2.    Liao CT, Hsieh TH, Shih CY, Liu PY, Wang JD. Cost-effectiveness of percutaneous coronary intervention versus medical therapy in patients with acute myocardial infarction: real-world and lifetime-horizon data from Taiwan. Scientific Reports. 2021 Mar 10;11(1):5608.
3.    Ullah M, Wahab A, Khan SU, Zaman U, ur Rehman K, Hamayun S, Naeem M, Ali H, Riaz T, Saeed S, Alsuhaibani AM. Stent as a novel technology for coronary artery disease and their clinical manifestation. Current Problems in Cardiology. 2023 Jan 1; 48(1): 101415.
4.    Bhalke JB, Hiremath S, Makhale CN. A cross-sectional study on coronary artery disease diagnosis in patients with peripheral artery disease. Journal of Interventional Medicine. 2022 Nov 1; 5(4): 184-9.
5.    Lin FJ, Shyu KG, Hsieh IC, Sheu WH, Tu ST, Yeh SJ, Chen CI, Lu KC, Wu CC, Shau WY, Inocencio TJ. Cost-effectiveness of statin therapy for secondary prevention among patients with coronary artery disease and baseline LDL-C 70–100 mg/dL in Taiwan. Journal of the Formosan Medical Association. 2020 May 1; 119(5): 907-16.
6.    Nasr IH, Seppälä M. Scully’s medical problems in dentistry.
7.    Weintraub WS, Spertus JA, Kolm P, Maron DJ, Zhang Z, Jurkovitz C, Zhang W, Hartigan PM, Lewis C. veledar E. Bowen J, Dunbar SB, Deaton C, Kaufman S, O’Rourke RA, Goeree R, Barnett PG, Teo KK, Boden WE, Mancini GB.:677-87.
8.    Chaoping W, Jing L, Qiang W, Meifang C, Qinglin Z, Zhiqiang L, Naeem A, Ming Y. Ancient and modern medication laws of aromatic Chinese medicines in treating angina pectoris based on data mining. Digital Chinese Medicine. 2022 Jun 1;5(2):123-40.
9.    Sun G, Liu Y, Rong D, Liang X. Association between serum uric acid levels and the prevalence of heart failure due to acute coronary syndrome in Chinese hospitalized patients: A cross-sectional study. Nutrition, Metabolism and Cardiovascular Diseases. 2023 Feb 1; 33(2): 308-14.
10.    Mullins CD, Onwudiwe NC, de Araújo GT, Chen W, Xuan J, Tichopád A, Hu S. Guidance document: global pharmacoeconomic model adaption strategies. Value in Health Regional Issues. 2014 Dec 1;5:7-13.
11.    Yue X, Li Y, Wu J, Guo JJ. Current development and practice of pharmacoeconomic evaluation guidelines for universal health coverage in China. Value in health regional issues. 2021 May 1;24:1-5.
12.    Roberts M, Russell LB, Paltiel AD, Chambers M, McEwan P, Krahn M. Conceptualizing a model: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM modeling good research practices task force–2. Medical Decision Making. 2012 Sep; 32(5): 678-89.
13.    Comanor WS, Schweitzer SO, Riddle JM, Schoenberg F. Value based pricing of pharmaceuticals in the US and UK: does centralized cost effectiveness analysis matter?. Review of Industrial Organization. 2018 Jun; 52: 589-602.
14.    Dehnhardt A, Grothmann T, Wagner J. Cost-benefit analysis: What limits its use in policy making and how to make it more usable? A case study on climate change adaptation in Germany. Environmental Science and Policy. 2022 Nov 1; 137: 53-60.
15.    Rognoni C, Armeni P, Tarricone R, Donin G. Cost–benefit analysis in health care: the case of bariatric surgery compared with diet. Clinical therapeutics. 2020 Jan 1; 42(1): 60-75.
16.    Bakst A. Pharmacoeconomics and the formulary decision-making process. Hospital Formulary. 1995 Jan 1; 30(1):42-50.
17.    Rai M, Goyal R. Pharmacoeconomics in healthcare. In Pharmaceutical Medicine and Translational Clinical Research 2018 Jan 1 (pp. 465-472). Academic Press.
18.    Ademi Z, Kim H, Zomer E, Reid CM, Hollingsworth B, Liew D. Overview of pharmacoeconomic modelling methods. British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology. 2013 Apr;75(4):944-50.
19.    Foster RH, McClellan KJ. Acamprosate: Pharmacoeconomic Implications of Therapy. Pharmacoeconomics. 1999 Dec;16(6):743-55.
20.    Arhip L, Serrano-Moreno C, Romero I, Camblor M, Cuerda C. The economic costs of home parenteral nutrition: systematic review of partial and full economic evaluations. Clinical Nutrition. 2021 Feb 1;40(2):339-49.
21.    Naveršnik K, Rojnik K. Handling input correlations in pharmacoeconomic models. Value in Health. 2012 May 1; 15(3): 540-9.


Recomonded Articles:

Research Journal of Pharmacy and Technology (RJPT) is an international, peer-reviewed, multidisciplinary journal.... Read more >>>

RNI: CHHENG00387/33/1/2008-TC                     
DOI: 10.5958/0974-360X 

1.3
2021CiteScore
 
56th percentile
Powered by  Scopus


SCImago Journal & Country Rank


Recent Articles




Tags


Not Available