What is it about?
In developing countries, the treatment of hemophilia patients with inhibitors is presently the most challenging and serious issue in hemophilia management. We have suggest that the low-dose ITI protocol may be a less expensive and/or more cost-effective option compared with on-demand first-line treatment with rFVIIa.
Featured Image
Why is it important?
Comparison of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios between the three ITI protocols and the on-demand regimen with rFVIIa shows that all three ITI protocols dominate the on-demand regimen with rFVIIa. Between the ITI protocols the low-dose ITI protocol dominates both the Bonn ITI protocol and the Malmö ITI protocol and would be the preferred ITI protocol. All of the three ITI protocols dominate the on-demand strategy, as they have both a lower average lifetime cost and higher quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained.
Perspectives
I hope this article makes what decision makers might think is a boring, slightly abstract area like pharmacoeconomics and outcome research things like health, kind of interesting and maybe even exciting. Because the way we spend money on health and social care is not just a problem for politicians, managers and researchers to worry about - it is an issue that touches every single human being on this planet in one way or another. More than anything else, and if nothing else, I hope you find this article thought-provoking.
Dr Ali Imani
Tabriz University of Medical Sciences
Read the Original
This page is a summary of: Cost-utility analysis of immune tolerance induction therapy versus on-demand treatment with recombinant factor VII for hemophilia A with high titer inhibitors in Iran, ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research, November 2011, Taylor & Francis,
DOI: 10.2147/ceor.s25909.
You can read the full text:
Contributors
The following have contributed to this page
