OBJECTIVE: To compare the costs to the Spanish healthcare system of 35 days' treatment with triflusal (600 mg/day) and aspirin (300 mg/day) in patients with confirmed acute myocardial infarction within 24 hours of onset of symptoms. DESIGN: A cost minimisation analysis based on the results of the Triflusal in Acute Myocardial Infarction study (TIM) was conducted. The hypothesis was that despite a higher acquisition cost of triflusal, savings would result because of differences in efficacy and safety outcome (non-fatal cerebrovascular event and haemorrhagic events). Diagnostic Related Groups were used as a proxy for determining hospital costs in Spain and the values were obtained from different sources and refer to year 2000 costs. Only direct medical costs were considered for the economic analysis. RESULTS: Although the acquisition cost of triflusal was more expensive than that of aspirin, the cost of prevented events - non-fatal ischaemic cerebrovascular events and cerebral haemorrhages - entirely compensated for the cost of triflusal. The overall cost of treating patients with triflusal, compared with aspirin, represented a net saving of 28.4% per patient treated. CONCLUSION: Our study showed that triflusal is cost saving compared with aspirin in the treatment of the acute phase of myocardial infarction.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To compare the costs to the Spanish healthcare system of 35 days' treatment with triflusal (600 mg/day) and aspirin (300 mg/day) in patients with confirmed acute myocardial infarction within 24 hours of onset of symptoms. DESIGN: A cost minimisation analysis based on the results of the Triflusal in Acute Myocardial Infarction study (TIM) was conducted. The hypothesis was that despite a higher acquisition cost of triflusal, savings would result because of differences in efficacy and safety outcome (non-fatal cerebrovascular event and haemorrhagic events). Diagnostic Related Groups were used as a proxy for determining hospital costs in Spain and the values were obtained from different sources and refer to year 2000 costs. Only direct medical costs were considered for the economic analysis. RESULTS: Although the acquisition cost of triflusal was more expensive than that of aspirin, the cost of prevented events - non-fatal ischaemic cerebrovascular events and cerebral haemorrhages - entirely compensated for the cost of triflusal. The overall cost of treating patients with triflusal, compared with aspirin, represented a net saving of 28.4% per patient treated. CONCLUSION: Our study showed that triflusal is cost saving compared with aspirin in the treatment of the acute phase of myocardial infarction.
Authors: J M Cruz-Fernández; L López-Bescós; D García-Dorado; V López García-Aranda; A Cabadés; L Martín-Jadraque; J A Velasco; A Castro-Beiras; F Torres; F Marfil; E Navarro Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2000-03 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: A Fernández de Arriba; F Cavalcanti; A Miralles; Y Bayón; A Alonso; M Merlos; J García-Rafanell; J Forn Journal: Mol Pharmacol Date: 1999-04 Impact factor: 4.436
Authors: M Gent; J A Blakely; J D Easton; D J Ellis; V C Hachinski; J W Harbison; E Panak; R S Roberts; J Sicurella; A G Turpie Journal: Lancet Date: 1989-06-03 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: L Plaza; L López-Bescós; L Martín-Jadraque; E Alegría; J M Cruz-Fernández; J Velasco; J A Ruipérez; F Malpartida; A Artal; A Cabadés Journal: Cardiology Date: 1993 Impact factor: 1.869
Authors: Lori Mosca; Emelia J Benjamin; Kathy Berra; Judy L Bezanson; Rowena J Dolor; Donald M Lloyd-Jones; L Kristin Newby; Ileana L Piña; Véronique L Roger; Leslee J Shaw; Dong Zhao; Theresa M Beckie; Cheryl Bushnell; Jeanine D'Armiento; Penny M Kris-Etherton; Jing Fang; Theodore G Ganiats; Antoinette S Gomes; Clarisa R Gracia; Constance K Haan; Elizabeth A Jackson; Debra R Judelson; Ellie Kelepouris; Carl J Lavie; Anne Moore; Nancy A Nussmeier; Elizabeth Ofili; Suzanne Oparil; Pamela Ouyang; Vivian W Pinn; Katherine Sherif; Sidney C Smith; George Sopko; Nisha Chandra-Strobos; Elaine M Urbina; Viola Vaccarino; Nanette K Wenger Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2011-03-22 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Lori Mosca; Emelia J Benjamin; Kathy Berra; Judy L Bezanson; Rowena J Dolor; Donald M Lloyd-Jones; L Kristin Newby; Ileana L Piña; Véronique L Roger; Leslee J Shaw; Dong Zhao; Theresa M Beckie; Cheryl Bushnell; Jeanine D'Armiento; Penny M Kris-Etherton; Jing Fang; Theodore G Ganiats; Antoinette S Gomes; Clarisa R Gracia; Constance K Haan; Elizabeth A Jackson; Debra R Judelson; Ellie Kelepouris; Carl J Lavie; Anne Moore; Nancy A Nussmeier; Elizabeth Ofili; Suzanne Oparil; Pamela Ouyang; Vivian W Pinn; Katherine Sherif; Sidney C Smith; George Sopko; Nisha Chandra-Strobos; Elaine M Urbina; Viola Vaccarino; Nanette K Wenger Journal: Circulation Date: 2011-02-14 Impact factor: 29.690