4/6/2023 0 Comments Gord treatment options![]() These analyses did not test for the differences in costs and effects by night-time and day-time subgroups. It is also unclear whether any inflationary adjustment was made to the direct costs taken from a paper published in 2003.Īnalysis and results:The cost and effect analyses were transparent and enable the reader to capture all assumptions made. However, given the poor response rate on the patient survey (15.4%) for self-reported resource utilisation for GORD treatments, it is unclear whether the results reflect true resource utilisation. The sources of costs were clearly reported. The separation of direct medical and indirect productivity costs should be noted for other nations, which do not have employer-funded health care. The merits and limitations of these studies were not reported and, as they are integral to the results of this analysis, readers should consult these studies to assess their quality.Ĭosts:The costs were from the employer's perspective, and in the USA, this includes direct medical costs. The data for the differences between day- and night-time effectiveness of PPI were based on two reports. The profile of the intended patient population was briefly described.Įffectiveness/benefits:The effectiveness data were derived from published reviews and were selected only if they reported symptom improvements. The type of PPI agent and exact daily dosage was not reported. Interventions:The two treatment options for GORD and the treatment schedule for the PPI treatment group over one-year were described and illustrated. The results of the sensitivity analyses were presented in a tornado diagram. These were based on high and low values from the literature or from expert opinion. All costs were reported in 2005 US dollars ($).Īnalysis of uncertainty:Simple one-way sensitivity analyses were performed to assess uncertainty in cost and effectiveness estimates. 2003, see ‘Other Publications of Related Interest’ below for bibliographic details). Overall values for medical and procedure costs were taken from a published report (Dean et al. The relative utilisation weights were obtained to allow published costs to be adjusted to make them more relevant to the authors' setting. Self-reported data relating to GORD treatment resources were derived using an online patient survey with a recall period of six months. PPI drugs were valued using manufacturers' wholesale prices for 2005. Measure of benefit:The clinical outcomes were presented but were not synthesised with costs.Ĭost data:The cost types were drug costs, hospitalisation, emergency room and physician office visits, and tests and procedures relating to GORD. Monetary benefit and utility valuations:None. 2006, see ‘Other Publications of Related Interest’ below for bibliographic details), and were valued using national average hourly earnings in 2005. The data on productivity losses due to GORD and following the treatment with PPI were derived from two publications (Dubois et al. Experts also provided estimates on the distributions of symptom severity on treatment relapse (the percentages of mild, moderate and severe symptoms). In addition, three experts were employed to provide a summary base value for each parameter based on the identified review findings. Published systematic and comprehensive reviews of PPI efficacy studies were identified using a PubMed search. The authors stated that the perspective was that of the employer.Įffectiveness data:The data on effectiveness included symptomatic response rates at four weeks, symptom breakthrough rates at six months, and response rates after four weeks on daily double dose of PPI. The costs and effects were analysed over one year. Analytical approach:A decision analytic model constructed in Excel was used to synthesise published data and patient survey findings.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |