Literature DB >> 29744629

Cost-effectiveness of B-type natriuretic peptide-guided care in patients with heart failure: a systematic review.

Abdosaleh Jafari1, Aziz Rezapour2, Marjan Hajahmadi3.   

Abstract

Measuring the level of B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP), as a guide to pharmacotherapy, can increase the survival of patients with heart failure. This study is aimed at systematically reviewing the studies conducted on the cost-effectiveness of BNP-guided care in patients with heart failure. Using the systematic review method, we reviewed the published studies on the cost-effectiveness of BNP-guided care in patients with heart failure during the years 2004 to 2017. The results showed that all studies clearly stated the time horizon of the study and included direct medical costs in their analysis. In addition, most of the studies used the Markov model. The quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were the main outcome used for measuring the effectiveness. The studies reported various ranges of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER); accordingly, the highest ratio was observed in the USA ($32,748) and the lowest ratio was observed in Canada ($6251). Although the results of the studies were different in terms of a number of aspects, such as the viewpoint of the study, the study horizons, and the costs of expenditure items, they reached similar results. Based on the results of the present study, it seems that the use of BNP or N-terminal pro-BNP (NT-pro-BNP) in patients with heart failure may reduce cost compared to the symptom-based clinical care and increase QALY. In this regard, these studies were designed and conducted in high-income countries; thus, the application of these results in low- and middle-income countries will be limited.

Entities:  

Keywords:  B-type natriuretic peptide; Cost-effectiveness; Economic evaluation; Heart failure

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29744629     DOI: 10.1007/s10741-018-9710-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Heart Fail Rev        ISSN: 1382-4147            Impact factor:   4.214


  50 in total

Review 1.  'Health Economics' and the evolution of economic evaluation of health technologies.

Authors:  John Hutton
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  2012-01       Impact factor: 3.046

Review 2.  Investigating the Generalizability of Economic Evaluations Conducted in Italy: A Critical Review.

Authors:  Matteo Ruggeri; Andrea Manca; Silvia Coretti; Paola Codella; Valentina Iacopino; Federica Romano; Daniele Mascia; Valentina Orlando; Americo Cicchetti
Journal:  Value Health       Date:  2015-07       Impact factor: 5.725

3.  Handling uncertainty of the economic evaluation result: sensitivity analysis.

Authors:  Supon Limwattananon
Journal:  J Med Assoc Thai       Date:  2008-06

Review 4.  Barriers to generalizability of health economic evaluations in Latin America and the Caribbean region.

Authors:  Federico Augustovski; Cynthia Iglesias; Andrea Manca; Michael Drummond; Adolfo Rubinstein; Sebastián García Martí
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2009       Impact factor: 4.981

5.  Factors affecting the technical efficiency of health systems: A case study of Economic Cooperation Organization (ECO) countries (2004-10).

Authors:  Ramin Ravangard; Nahid Hatam; Abedin Teimourizad; Abdosaleh Jafari
Journal:  Int J Health Policy Manag       Date:  2014-06-08

6.  Electrocardiographic Versus Echocardiographic Left Ventricular Hypertrophy in Prediction of Congestive Heart Failure in the Elderly.

Authors:  Mohamed Faher Almahmoud; Wesley T O'Neal; Waqas Qureshi; Elsayed Z Soliman
Journal:  Clin Cardiol       Date:  2015-05-12       Impact factor: 2.882

7.  Cost-effectiveness of using N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide to guide the diagnostic assessment and management of dyspneic patients in the emergency department.

Authors:  Uwe Siebert; James L Januzzi; Molly T Beinfeld; Renee Cameron; G Scott Gazelle
Journal:  Am J Cardiol       Date:  2006-08-02       Impact factor: 2.778

8.  B-type natriuretic peptide-guided heart failure therapy: A meta-analysis.

Authors:  Pramote Porapakkham; Pornwalee Porapakkham; Hendrik Zimmet; Baki Billah; Henry Krum
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  2010-03-22

9.  The use of brain natriuretic peptide as a screening test for left ventricular systolic dysfunction- cost-effectiveness in relation to open access echocardiography.

Authors:  Victor Sim; David Hampton; Ceri Phillips; Su-Neng Lo; Sanjeev Vasishta; John Davies; Micheal Penney
Journal:  Fam Pract       Date:  2003-10       Impact factor: 2.267

Review 10.  Growing epidemic of coronary heart disease in low- and middle-income countries.

Authors:  Thomas A Gaziano; Asaf Bitton; Shuchi Anand; Shafika Abrahams-Gessel; Adrianna Murphy
Journal:  Curr Probl Cardiol       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 5.200

View more
  4 in total

Review 1.  Cost-effectiveness of cardiac resynchronization therapy plus an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator in patients with heart failure: a systematic review.

Authors:  Abedin Teimourizad; Aziz Rezapour; Saeed Sadeghian; Masih Tajdini
Journal:  Cost Eff Resour Alloc       Date:  2021-05-21

2.  Cost-effectiveness of coronary artery bypass graft and percutaneous coronary intervention compared to medical therapy in patients with coronary artery disease: a systematic review.

Authors:  Saeed Sheikh Gholami; Farbod Ebadi Fard Azar; Aziz Rezapour; Masih Tajdini
Journal:  Heart Fail Rev       Date:  2019-11       Impact factor: 4.214

Review 3.  Cost effectiveness analyses of pharmacological treatments in heart failure.

Authors:  Audrey Huili Lim; Nusaibah Abdul Rahim; Jinxin Zhao; S Y Amy Cheung; Yu-Wei Lin
Journal:  Front Pharmacol       Date:  2022-09-05       Impact factor: 5.988

4.  The cost-effectiveness of B-type natriuretic peptide-guided care in compared to standard clinical assessment in outpatients with heart failure in Tehran, Iran.

Authors:  Aziz Rezapour; Andrew J Palmer; Vahid Alipour; Marjan Hajahmadi; Abdosaleh Jafari
Journal:  Cost Eff Resour Alloc       Date:  2021-12-23
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.