↓ Skip to main content

Cost Effectiveness of Genotype-Guided Warfarin Dosing in Patients with Mechanical Heart Valve Replacement Under the Fee-for-Service System

Overview of attention for article published in Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
52 Mendeley
Title
Cost Effectiveness of Genotype-Guided Warfarin Dosing in Patients with Mechanical Heart Valve Replacement Under the Fee-for-Service System
Published in
Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, February 2017
DOI 10.1007/s40258-017-0317-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dong-Jin Kim, Ho-Sook Kim, Minkyung Oh, Eun-Young Kim, Jae-Gook Shin

Abstract

Although studies assessing the cost effectiveness of genotype-guided warfarin dosing for the management of atrial fibrillation, deep vein thrombosis, and pulmonary embolism have been reported, no publications have addressed genotype-guided warfarin therapy in mechanical heart valve replacement (MHVR) patients or genotype-guided warfarin therapy under the fee-for-service (FFS) insurance system. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost effectiveness of genotype-guided warfarin dosing in patients with MHVR under the FFS system from the Korea healthcare sector perspective. A decision-analytic Markov model was developed to evaluate the cost effectiveness of genotype-guided warfarin dosing compared with standard dosing. Estimates of clinical adverse event rates and health state utilities were derived from the published literature. The outcome measure was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to explore the range of plausible results. In a base-case analysis, genotype-guided warfarin dosing was associated with marginally higher QALYs than standard warfarin dosing (6.088 vs. 6.083, respectively), at a slightly higher cost (US$6.8) (year 2016 values). The ICER was US$1356.2 per QALY gained. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis, there was an 82.7% probability that genotype-guided dosing was dominant compared with standard dosing, and a 99.8% probability that it was cost effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of US$50,000 per QALY gained. Compared with only standard warfarin therapy, genotype-guided warfarin dosing was cost effective in MHVR patients under the FFS insurance system.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 52 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 52 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 13 25%
Other 4 8%
Student > Postgraduate 4 8%
Researcher 4 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 8%
Other 8 15%
Unknown 15 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 21%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 12%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 10%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 4 8%
Other 5 10%
Unknown 15 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 March 2017.
All research outputs
#18,535,896
of 22,957,478 outputs
Outputs from Applied Health Economics and Health Policy
#615
of 784 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#237,650
of 310,863 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Applied Health Economics and Health Policy
#18
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,957,478 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 784 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.0. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 310,863 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.