FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2009092489> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2009092489 endingPage "51" @default.
• W2009092489 startingPage "44" @default.
• W2009092489 abstract "Safety and efficacy are not the only parameters of interest in the choice of medical technology—costs are playing an increasingly important role. There is growing interest in ‘value for money', which can be assessed economically by comparing the costs and consequences of alternative courses of action. A number of different economic evaluation methods may be used: cost-minimization (only costs examined with no consideration given to consequences); cost-effectiveness (in which a unidimensional clinical outcome is assessed, for example, life-years gained); cost-utility (multidimensional outcomes measured, for example quantity and quality of life); and cost-benefit (where outcome is considered in monetary terms). Ulcer disease offers several examples of how economic evaluation can be used to address issues related to efficiency and value for money in healthcare. In a study of reflux oesophagitis, omeprazole was shown to be more cost-effective than ranitidine in a 12-week treatment study. With omeprazole the costs were lower and the effectiveness better than with the H2-receptor antagonist. In a later study the cost-effectiveness of omeprazole and ranitidine are compared for both intermittent and maintenance treatment in reflux oesophagitis. Using a Markov chain approach, Swedish cost data and studying a time period of 12 months, it is found that omeprazole is both more effective in providing healthy days and less costly than ranitidine for both treatment strategies. The comparison between intermittent treatment and maintenance treatment with omeprazole shows that the latter is more effective but also more costly. It is concluded that the relative cost-effectiveness of omeprazole maintenance treatment increases with the risk of relapse when off treatment, the severity of symptoms following relapse, and the value of healthy days, i.e. days free from reflux oesophagitis. A model analysis comparing Helicobacter pylori eradication with conventional treatments in patients with duodenal ulcer disease has shown H. pylori eradication to be cost-effective when compared with either episodic therapy using omeprazole or maintenance therapy with ranitidine. The study used a Markov chain approach, and included the cost of treatment, in Swedish crowns, in a Swedish primary care setting over a period of 5 years. In the analysis, patients receiving conventional therapy were initially healed with omeprazole, 20–40 mg once daily. Following healing, patients were either treated with further courses of omeprazole upon relapse or were given maintenance treatment with ranitidine, 150 mg once daily. The patients who were assigned to the H. pylori eradication therapy group were initially given an H. pylori test. Those patients who proved positive for the bacterium received omeprazole, 20 mg twice daily, plus amoxicillin, 2000 mg daily in divided doses, for 2 weeks, followed by omeprazole, 20 mg once daily, for a further 2 weeks to ensure healing. Patients who were H. pylori-negative were assigned to receive either episodic or maintenance therapy as described above. The model assumption applied in the H. pylori eradication group was that, following successful healing and H. pylori eradication, virtually all patients were cured and experienced no relapse during the following 5 years. By contrast, almost all the patients assigned to episodic therapy relapsed and, during maintenance therapy with H2-receptor antagonists, most patients experienced at least one relapse. Although H. pylori eradication resulted in initial higher costs than the alternative strategies, it reduced the risk of recurrence and for most patients there were no future costs. The investment therefore paid off within a relatively short period of time. Even when unfavourable assumptions were made, such as an H. pylori eradication rate of only 50%, the H. pylori eradication strategy had a pay-off period of less than 1.3 years compared with maintenance treatment, and 3 years compared with episodic treatment. Based on an American multicentre study, an economic evaluation of prophylactic misoprostol was undertaken in Sweden. The study included 420 patients with osteoarthritis and nonsteroidal antinflammatory drug (NSAID)-associated abdominal pain, but no gastric ulcer at inclusion. The frequency of ulcer development with and without prophylactic misoprostol was assessed at 21.7% and 5.6%, respectively, for a 3-month period. All costs for drugs, ambulatory care, hospital care, loss of production, as well as factors such as dosage and compliance, were transferred to Swedish conditions. It was concluded that in patients with osteoarthritis and NSAID-induced abdominal pain prophylaxis with misoprostol is cost-effective in Sweden, which is similar to what is found in other countries. A prerequisite for this result is a frequency of ulcer development of 15%. A patient compliance to prophylactic treatment of more than 60% is also presupposed (79% was observed in the above study). Owing to the high age of the osteoarthritis patient population, cost-effectiveness is influenced to only a minor extent by whether indirect costs are included in the calculation. A review of studies about screening for colon cancer concludes the paper." @default.
• W2009092489 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2009092489 creator A5010810577 @default.
• W2009092489 creator A5045736313 @default.
• W2009092489 date "1996-01-01" @default.
• W2009092489 modified "2023-09-28" @default.
• W2009092489 title "Economic Evaluation in Gastrointestinal Disease" @default.
• W2009092489 cites W124960105 @default.
• W2009092489 cites W16190800 @default.
• W2009092489 cites W1639636254 @default.
• W2009092489 cites W1964920739 @default.
• W2009092489 cites W1965928968 @default.
• W2009092489 cites W1982023646 @default.
• W2009092489 cites W2006503598 @default.
• W2009092489 cites W2017974830 @default.
• W2009092489 cites W2018550539 @default.
• W2009092489 cites W2026851147 @default.
• W2009092489 cites W2028473652 @default.
• W2009092489 cites W2040886542 @default.
• W2009092489 cites W2043855198 @default.
• W2009092489 cites W2048648372 @default.
• W2009092489 cites W2050662886 @default.
• W2009092489 cites W2052853504 @default.
• W2009092489 cites W2089638117 @default.
• W2009092489 cites W2102166734 @default.
• W2009092489 cites W2163078962 @default.
• W2009092489 cites W4291018122 @default.
• W2009092489 cites W1963597212 @default.
• W2009092489 doi "https://doi.org/10.3109/00365529609094749" @default.
• W2009092489 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8898435" @default.
• W2009092489 hasPublicationYear "1996" @default.
• W2009092489 type Work @default.
• W2009092489 sameAs 2009092489 @default.
• W2009092489 citedByCount "6" @default.
• W2009092489 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2009092489 hasAuthorship W2009092489A5010810577 @default.
• W2009092489 hasAuthorship W2009092489A5045736313 @default.
• W2009092489 hasConcept C112930515 @default.
• W2009092489 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W2009092489 hasConcept C127454912 @default.
• W2009092489 hasConcept C142724271 @default.
• W2009092489 hasConcept C159110408 @default.
• W2009092489 hasConcept C177713679 @default.
• W2009092489 hasConcept C18903297 @default.
• W2009092489 hasConcept C2776125615 @default.
• W2009092489 hasConcept C2777445857 @default.
• W2009092489 hasConcept C2777498785 @default.
• W2009092489 hasConcept C2779134260 @default.
• W2009092489 hasConcept C2779951463 @default.
• W2009092489 hasConcept C2909576783 @default.
• W2009092489 hasConcept C3019080777 @default.
• W2009092489 hasConcept C43270747 @default.
• W2009092489 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2009092489 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W2009092489 hasConceptScore W2009092489C112930515 @default.
• W2009092489 hasConceptScore W2009092489C126322002 @default.
• W2009092489 hasConceptScore W2009092489C127454912 @default.
• W2009092489 hasConceptScore W2009092489C142724271 @default.
• W2009092489 hasConceptScore W2009092489C159110408 @default.
• W2009092489 hasConceptScore W2009092489C177713679 @default.
• W2009092489 hasConceptScore W2009092489C18903297 @default.
• W2009092489 hasConceptScore W2009092489C2776125615 @default.
• W2009092489 hasConceptScore W2009092489C2777445857 @default.
• W2009092489 hasConceptScore W2009092489C2777498785 @default.
• W2009092489 hasConceptScore W2009092489C2779134260 @default.
• W2009092489 hasConceptScore W2009092489C2779951463 @default.
• W2009092489 hasConceptScore W2009092489C2909576783 @default.
• W2009092489 hasConceptScore W2009092489C3019080777 @default.
• W2009092489 hasConceptScore W2009092489C43270747 @default.
• W2009092489 hasConceptScore W2009092489C71924100 @default.
• W2009092489 hasConceptScore W2009092489C86803240 @default.
• W2009092489 hasIssue "sup220" @default.
• W2009092489 hasLocation W20090924891 @default.
• W2009092489 hasLocation W20090924892 @default.
• W2009092489 hasOpenAccess W2009092489 @default.
• W2009092489 hasPrimaryLocation W20090924891 @default.
• W2009092489 hasRelatedWork W1534711750 @default.
• W2009092489 hasRelatedWork W2000229911 @default.
• W2009092489 hasRelatedWork W2009092489 @default.
• W2009092489 hasRelatedWork W2093226163 @default.
• W2009092489 hasRelatedWork W2410648683 @default.
• W2009092489 hasRelatedWork W2412679196 @default.
• W2009092489 hasRelatedWork W2412873856 @default.
• W2009092489 hasRelatedWork W2414514832 @default.
• W2009092489 hasRelatedWork W3045530172 @default.
• W2009092489 hasRelatedWork W47783916 @default.
• W2009092489 hasVolume "31" @default.
• W2009092489 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2009092489 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2009092489 magId "2009092489" @default.
• W2009092489 workType "article" @default.