Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://cmuir.cmu.ac.th/jspui/handle/6653943832/61302
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorKanlaya Teerawattananonen_US
dc.contributor.authorSaniorn Iewsakulen_US
dc.contributor.authorChawewan Yenjitren_US
dc.contributor.authorSomsanguan Ausayakhunen_US
dc.contributor.authorWatanee Yenjitren_US
dc.contributor.authorMiranda Mugforden_US
dc.contributor.authorYot Teerawattananonen_US
dc.date.accessioned2018-09-10T04:08:18Z-
dc.date.available2018-09-10T04:08:18Z-
dc.date.issued2007-05-18en_US
dc.identifier.issn11707690en_US
dc.identifier.other2-s2.0-34248347409en_US
dc.identifier.other10.2165/00019053-200725050-00005en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=34248347409&origin=inwarden_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://cmuir.cmu.ac.th/jspui/handle/6653943832/61302-
dc.description.abstractBackground: There are many effective interventions, via various routes (intravenous [IV], oral [OR], intravitreal injection [IVT] and intraocular implantation [IMP]), for treating cytomegalovirus retinitis (CMVR) that have become available. There are large variations in treating CMVR in clinical practice in Thailand. Objective: To evaluate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of providing (i) IVT, (ii) IV/OR and (iii) IMP ganciclovir to patients with HIV/AIDS and CMVR versus providing no treatment. Design: A simulation study for which the input parameters were derived from a systematic review of the literature, a hospital-based survey and patient interviews. Setting: The analysis assumed a Thai healthcare system perspective. However, the model was run using both societal and healthcare provider perspectives. Results: Our results suggest that IVT ganciclovir was cost effective and the best option for treating patients with CMVR irrespective of whether patients received antiretroviral treatment (ART). In patients receiving ART, moving from IVT to IV/OR ganciclovir was also likely to be a cost-effective option. Offering IMP ganciclovir was not likely to be cost effective. Providing treatments for patients with bilateral CMVR was more cost effective than providing treatments for those with unilateral CMVR, and offering treatments for patients receiving ART was better value for money than treating patients without ART. Conclusions: Our models suggest that IV/OR ganciclovir should be recommended for the treatment of unilateral and bilateral CMVR for patients receiving ART in the Thai healthcare system. IVT ganciclovir may also have a role in the treatment of CMVR patients not receiving ART. © 2007 Adis Data Information BV. All rights reserved.en_US
dc.subjectMedicineen_US
dc.subjectPharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceuticsen_US
dc.titleEconomic evaluation of treatment administration strategies of ganciclovir for cytomegalovirus retinitis in HIV/AIDS patients in Thailand: A simulation studyen_US
dc.typeJournalen_US
article.title.sourcetitlePharmacoEconomicsen_US
article.volume25en_US
article.stream.affiliationsChiangkhum Hospitalen_US
article.stream.affiliationsThailand Ministry of Public Healthen_US
article.stream.affiliationsChiang Mai Universityen_US
article.stream.affiliationsPriest Hospitalen_US
article.stream.affiliationsUniversity of East Anglia Faculty of Healthen_US
article.stream.affiliationsHealth Intervention and Technology Assessment Programen_US
Appears in Collections:CMUL: Journal Articles

Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.


Items in CMUIR are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.