MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2128721688 · doi:10.3111/13696998.2012.756400

Comparative net cost impact of the utilization of romiplostim and intravenous immunoglobulin for the treatment of patients with immune thrombocytopenia in Québec, Canada

2012· article· en· W2128721688 on OpenAlexafffundabout
M. Pettigrew, Kirsten Garces, Robert Deuson, Jeannine Kassis, Vinçent Laroche

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Medical Economics · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPlatelet Disorders and Treatments
Canadian institutionsInstitut universitaire de cardiologie et de pneumologie de QuébecHôpital Maisonneuve-Rosemont
FundersAmgen CanadaForskningsrådet om Hälsa, Arbetsliv och Välfärd
KeywordsRomiplostimMedicineThrombopoietinImmune thrombocytopeniaPediatricsEmergency medicineInternal medicinePlatelet

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Immune thrombocytopenia (ITP) is an autoimmune disorder characterized by platelet destruction, sub-optimal platelet production, and mild-to-severe bleeding. Nplate® (romiplostim), a thrombopoietin receptor agonist, and intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg), an expensive and occasionally scarce blood product, are used in the treatment of ITP. The objective of this study was to compare the total cost of treating patients with romiplostim vs IVIg in Québec, Canada. METHODS: A net cost impact model was developed to calculate the annual cost of romiplostim compared with IVIg based on actual practice observations in all patients (n = 95) treated for chronic ITP with IVIg from April 2010 to March 2011 in two participating hospitals. The model included costs of: drug acquisition, drug preparation and administration, patient monitoring, and indirect costs. Healthcare practitioners were consulted regarding romiplostim and IVIg treatment algorithms and the resources involved in patient monitoring. RESULTS: The average annual drug acquisition costs of romiplostim and IVIg were $48,024 and $98,868, respectively. Lower costs for drug preparation and administration ($309 vs $1245) and less time lost from work ($256 vs $2086) were attributed to romiplostim. The cost of follow-up monitoring was the same for both romiplostim and IVIg ($121). The total average annual per patient costs for romiplostim vs IVIg were, respectively, $48,710 and $102,320. The use of romiplostim was projected to save, on average, almost $54,000 per patient per year. LIMITATIONS: The study was conducted in two hospitals in Québec. Romiplostim may show different cost savings in other hospitals and other provincial and national jurisdictions. CONCLUSIONS: Scarce blood products must be used wisely. Romiplostim can allow for improved healthcare resource allocation by reserving IVIg for use in other areas of greater need while also providing cost savings for the overall provincial healthcare budget.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.905

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.262 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2012
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Medical EconomicsSame topicPlatelet Disorders and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207