Source: https://www.pharmacoeconomics.ru/jour/article/view/198
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 06:21:17+00:00

Document:
The article presents the results of traditional pharmaco-economic analysis (the “cost-effectiveness” method) and socio-economic analysis of pharmaco-therapeutic regimens in a chronic disease.
The specific aim was to compare the methods of pharmaco-economic and socioeconomic analyses when applied to the treatment of children with chronic asthma exacerbations.
Materials and methods. The data on basic therapy of asthma exacerbations in children hospitalized in 2014-2015 were used (total 608 cases).
Сonclusion. The traditional pharmacoeconomic analysis is the ideal instrument to compare between the original and generic drugs, and to evaluate the treatment of acute diseases. With respect to chronic diseases, this pharmaco-economic analysis should be used with caution. Without taking into account the effectiveness of the analyzed pharmacotherapy in treating possible exacerbations, or the transition to a more severe / mild form of the disease, the clinical component of the pharmaco-economic analysis may be missed. And if so, only the economic component of the selected therapy will play the major role in the final assessment. In this case, the results of the entire pharmaco-economic analysis may become less significant as they will reflect the least expensive treatment only, leaving behind the clinical aspects, e. g. the number of positive outcomes.
1. Briskin B. S., Lomidze O. V. Remedium. 2005; 4: 30-35.
2. Economic evaluation of the effectiveness of drug therapy (pharmacoeconomic analysis). Ed. Prof. P. A. Vorobyev [Ekonomicheskaya otsenka effektivnosti lekarstvennoi terapii (farmakoekonomicheskii analiz). Pod red. prof. P. A. Vorob’eva (in Russian)]. Moscow. 2000; 80 s.
3. Renee J. G. Arnold., Boca Raton F. L. Pharmacoeconomics: From Theory to Practice (Drug Discovery). CRC Press. 2009; 263-273.
4. Zaitseva O. V., Murtazaeva O. A. Voprosy sovremennoi pediatrii. 2011; 10: 148-156.
5. Sharavii A. O., Smirnova S. V. Byulleten’ VSNTs SO RAMN. 2012; 3: 222-225.
6. Khelimskaya I. V., Alekseenko S. A. Dnevnik kazanskoi meditsinskoi shkoly. 2013; 1: 40-42.
7. Hartert T. V., Speroff T., Togias A. et al. Risk factors for recurrent asthma hospital visits and death among a population o f indigent older adults with asthma. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2002; 89: 467-73.
8. Kolbin A. S., Klimko N. N., Andreev B. V. Kachestvennaya klinicheskaya praktika. 2008; 2: 53-61.
9. Global strategy for the treatment and prevention of bronchial asthma (2012 revision). Translation from English. Ed. A. S. Belevsky [Global’naya strategiya lecheniya i profilaktiki bronkhial’noi astmy (peresmotr 2012 g.). Per. s angl. / Pod red. A. S. Belevskogo (in Russian)]. Moscow. 2012; 108 s.
10. Drobik O. S., Biteeva D. V. Meditsinskii sovet. 2014; 16: 12-16.
11. Zaitseva O. V. Meditsinskii sovet. 2013; 1: 34-41.
12. Shaporova N. L., Trofimov V. I., Marchenko V. N. Atmosfera. Pul’monologiya i allergologiya. 2013; 4: 3-6.
13. Bisgaard H., Zielen S., Garcia M. L. et al. Montelukast reduces asthma exacerbations in 2- to 5-year old children with intermittent asthma. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 2005; 171 (4): 315-322.
14. Kulichenko T. V. Montelukast v lechenii allergicheskikh boleznei. Pediatricheskaya farmakologiya. 2006; 3 (4): 32-41.
15. Robertson C. F., Henry R. L., Mellis C. et al. Short course montelukast for intermittent asthma in children: the Pre-Empr Study. Presented at the American Thoracic Society International Conference. USA, [A53] Poster C71, May 2004.

References: V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V.