COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS IN THE MANAGEMENT OF STROKE

Gopi B; Sushmitha C; Nikitha Ksv; Monika M; Raghavendra Kumar Gunda; Satyanarayana V; Suresh Kumar Jn

doi:10.22159/ajpcr.2017.v10i7.18318

Authors

Gopi B Department of Pharmacy Practice, Narasaraopeta Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Narasaraopet, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh, India
Sushmitha C Department of Pharmacy Practice, Narasaraopeta Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Narasaraopet, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh, India
Nikitha Ksv Department of Pharmacy Practice, Narasaraopeta Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Narasaraopet, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh, India
Monika M Department of Pharmacy Practice, Narasaraopeta Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Narasaraopet, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh, India
Raghavendra Kumar Gunda Department of Pharmaceutics, Narasaraopeta Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Narasaraopeta, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh, India.
Satyanarayana V Department of Pharmacy Practice, Narasaraopeta Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Narasaraopeta, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh, India.
Suresh Kumar Jn Department of Pharmaceutics, Narasaraopeta Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Narasaraopeta, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh, India.

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.22159/ajpcr.2017.v10i7.18318

Keywords:

Stroke, Pharmacoeconomics, Cost-effectiveness analysis, Aspirin, Clopidogrel, Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio

Abstract

Objective: Stroke is one of the leading causes of death and disabilities worldwide. Cost-effectiveness analysis helps identify neglected opportunities by highlighting interventions that are relatively inexpensive, yet have the potential to reduce the disease burden substantially. In India, there are wide social and economic disparities. Socioeconomic environment influences occupation, lifestyle, and nutrition of social classes which in turn would influence the prevalence and profile of stroke. By reduction of delays in access to hospital and improving provision of affordable treatments can reduce morbidity and mortality in patients with stroke in India. This study is designed to measure and compare the costs (resources consumed) and consequences (clinical, economic, and humanistic) of pharmaceutical products and services and their impact on individuals, healthcare systems and society.

Methods: The purpose of this study is to analyze and conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis for the treatment of stroke in Guntur City Hospitals. The patients were treated either with aspirin or clopidogrel. The health outcomes were measured using Modified Rankin Scale, A prominent risk assessment scale for stroke. The pharmacoeconomic data were computed from the patient data collection forms.

Result: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of aspirin and clopidogrel were calculated to be Rs. 8046.2/year.

Conclusion: The study concludes that aspirin has the increased socioeconomic impact when compared to Clopidogrel and we can see that the earlier therapy has supported discharge, home-based rehabilitation along with reduced hospital stay and hence preferable.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Dewey HM, Thrift AG, Mihalopoulos C, Carter R, Macdonell RA, McNeil JJ, et al. Cost of stroke in Australia from a societal perspective: Results from the North East Melbourne Stroke Incidence Study (NEMESIS). Stroke 2001;32(10):2409-16.

Saka O, McGuire A, Wolfe C. Cost of stroke in the United Kingdom. Age Ageing 2009;38(1):27-32.

Goeree R, Blackhouse G, Petrovic R, Salama S. Cost of stroke in Canada: A 1year prospective study. J Med Econ 2005;8:147-67.

Scott WG, Scott H. Ischaemic stroke in New Zealand: An economic study. N Z Med J 1994;107(989):443-6.

Lim SJ, Kim HJ, Nam CM, Chang HS, Jang YH, Kim S, et al. Socioeconomic costs of stroke in Korea: Estimated from the Korea national health insurance claims database. J Prev Med Public Health 2009;42(4):251-60.

Chang KC, Tseng MC. Costs of acute care of first-ever ischemic stroke in Taiwan. Stroke 2003;34(11):e219-21.

Das SK, Banerjee TK, Biswas A, Roy T, Raut DK, Mukherjee CS, et al. A prospective community-based study of stroke in Kolkata, India. Stroke 2007;38(3):906-10.

Sridharan SE, Unnikrishnan JP, Sukumaran S, Sylaja PN, Nayak SD, Sarma PS, et al. Incidence, types, risk factors, and outcome of stroke in a developing country: The Trivandrum Stroke Registry. Stroke 2009;40(4):1212-8.

Dalal PM, Malik S, Bhattacharjee M, Trivedi ND, Vairale J, Bhat P, et al. Population-based stroke survey in Mumbai, India: Incidence and 28-day case fatality. Neuroepidemiology 2008;31(4):254-61.

Strong K, Mathers C, Bonita R. Preventing stroke: Saving lives around the world. Lancet Neurol 2007;6(2):182-7.

Di Carlo A. Human and economic burden of stroke. Age Ageing 2009;38(1):4-5.

Lopez AD, Mathers CD, Ezzati M, Jamison DT, Murray CJ. Global and regional burden of disease and risk factors, 2001: Systematic analysis of population health data. Lancet 2006;367(9524):1747-57.

Felicissimo T, Mosegui GB, Vianna CM, Araujo RL, Rodrigues MP, Valle PM, et al. Cost effectiveness analysis of trastuzumab in the treatment of metastatic breast cancer. Int J Pharm Pharm Sci 2015;7(4):307-12.

Balarajan Y, Selvaraj S, Subramanian SV. Health care and equity in India. Lancet 2011;377(9764):505-15.

Atal S, Atal S, Deshmankar B, Nawaz SA. Cost analysis of commonly used drugs under price control in India: Assessing the effect of drug price control order on brand price variation. Int J Pharm Pharm Sci 2016;8(4):315-21.

Pashos CL, Klein EG, Wanke LA. ISPOR Lexicon. 1st ed. Princeton: International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research; 1998.

Ahuja J, Gupta M, Gupta AK, Kohli K. Pharmacoeconomics. Natl Med J India 2004;17(2):80-3.

Panaskar AN, Mane BD. Pharmacoeconomics: Need for introduction in Indian health care. Int J Curr Pharm Sci 2014;1(2):149-52.

Jamison DT, Breman JG, Measham AR, Alleyne G, Claeson M, Evans DB, et al., editors. Disease Control Priorities in Developing Countries. Washington, DC: The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank; 2006.

Mushlin AI, Ghomrawi H. Health care reform and the need for comparative-effectiveness research. N Engl J Med 2010;362(3):e6.