ライフサイエンスコーパス: drug cost

1 ment, if equally effective, would reduce the drug cost.

2 d-generation antipsychotics because of lower drug cost.

3 trations per day, and a lower total sedative drug cost.

4 erenone arm (95% CI, 656 to 2165) because of drug cost.

5 use of increased pressures to control rising drug costs.

6 ors, and pharmacist consultation has reduced drug costs.

7 , despite universal coverage of prescription drug costs.

8 otomy and laboratory monitoring, and overall drug costs.

9 n, and taking actions to reduce prescription drug costs.

10 , ED visits, hospital days, and prescription drug costs.

11 e QALYs but accumulated substantially higher drug costs.

12 assuming a range of essential medicines list drug costs.

13 e correlations between framework outputs and drug costs.

14 ere sensitive to rates of rhabdomyolysis and drug costs.

15 rategies for the reduction of antiretroviral drug costs.

16 ers more often and had higher asthma-related drug costs.

17 enter the coverage gap and must pay 100% of drug costs.

18 of ovarian cancer is primarily dependent on drug costs.

19 ing and often report behavioral responses to drug costs.

20 6.1% (95% CI, 5.8%-6.4%) of the chemotherapy drug costs.

21 tate provision of medications by subsidizing drug costs.

22 laries in an attempt to control prescription-drug costs.

23 proximately 0.6 days, offsetting most of the drug costs.

24 It is unknown how these initiatives affect drug costs.

25 rm were higher than on the VC arm because of drug costs.

26 ave increased at a rate greater than non-ICU drug costs (12% vs. 6%).

27 Inclusive of average drug cost ($1454 to $1457), the net incremental baseline

28 n contrast, for the psoriasis group this was drug costs (46.5%) and for the control group, inpatient

29 ICU drug costs accounted for 38.4% (+/-4.1% sd) of the total

30 be needed to prevent additional increases in drug costs after launch.

31 Despite higher drug costs, aggregate hospital and 30-day costs were low

32 Despite higher drug costs, aggregate hospital stay costs were lowest wi

33 This suggests that drug cost alone does not explain noncompliant behavior.

34 Here, we aim to compare 3 methods of drug cost analysis during 3 phases of an ASP as an examp

35 y makers to reconcile the disconnect between drug cost and clinical benefit.

36 is not cost effective in the setting of high drug costs and a low biomarker frequency in the populati

37 fety, improved patient outcomes, and reduced drug costs and as a source of drug information and provi

38 erence is common and may be reduced by lower drug costs and copayments, as well as increased follow-u

39 t health care needs and public concern about drug costs and coverage, it is time to act responsibly a

40 illion in total Medicare part D prescription drug costs and generated the highest percentage of brand

41 ccounted for 38.4% (+/-4.1% sd) of the total drug costs and have increased at a rate greater than non

42 maintenance organization patients had lower drug costs and total medical costs.

43 variety of assumptions about drug efficacy, drug cost, and rates of cardiac and cerebrovascular even

44 salary levels for community delivery agents, drug costs, and coverage rates for 2000 were used to dev

45 hazard ratio for hospitalization reduction, drug costs, and quality-of-life estimates.

46 Highest drug costs are associated with total intravenous anesthe

47 , length of hospital stay, and out-of-pocket drug costs as covariates.

48 The cost inputs included drug costs, based on the Medicare average sale prices, a

49 Differences in monthly drug cost between the experimental and control groups of

50 fied in adjusted out-of-pocket prescriptions drug costs between the near poor and those with higher i

51 y has been associated with unacceptably high drug costs, both for newly developed drugs and for drugs

52 t of managing toxicity was low compared with drug costs but higher than controls for treatment with l

53 ic status were all associated with increased drug costs but not hospitalization costs.

54 rug, we calculated the cumulative and annual drug cost changes.

55 c7E3 Fab arm averaged $13,577 (exclusive of drug cost) compared with $13,434 for placebo (P = .42).

56 patients treated with biologics were due to drug costs, compared with 28% in patients without use of

57 stered anticancer medications and summarized drug costs, cost-sharing designs used by available plans

58 ted at least 1 of the following responses to drug costs: cost-coping behavior (26%), reduced adherenc

59 e 100 randomised controlled trials for which drug costing data were available, ASCO benefit score and

60 edicare reimbursement schedules, average IMS drug costs, expert opinion, and peer-reviewed literature

61 e calculated both as the percentage of total drug costs for each fiscal year and adjusted for hospita

62 uthors used a discount pharmacy to determine drug costs for persons receiving no assistance, could no

63 ars for all drugs reduced the annual average drug cost from 725 US dollars to 563 US dollars per memb

64 This resulted in a 28% reduction in drug cost from before dose reduction (P < .001).

65 The savings in drug costs from the cap were offset by increases in the

66 eved from the National Patient Register, and drug costs from the Prescribed Drug Register (years 7-20

67 Drug costs from years 7 through 20 were lower for surger

68 At existing HCV drug costs, halving chronic prevalence would require ann

69 d probably require substantial reductions in drug costs in high-income countries to be feasible.

70 care costs by $29 billion over 5 years, but drug costs increased by an estimated $592 billion (a 38%

71 Psychotropic drug costs increased during the first year after initiat

72 F following pancreas resection; however, the drug cost is significant.

73 Conclusion Anticancer drug costs may change substantially after launch.

74 Rapidly escalating drug costs, more restrictive drug-coverage policies, and

75 In response to increasing prescription drug costs, more U.S. patients and policymakers are impo

76 a gap in coverage if they exceeded $2250 in drug costs (N = 1040; 74.9% response rate).

77 S Cost and Services Utilization Survey, with drug costs obtained from the Red Book.

78 compared with 90 patients in phase 2 with a drug cost of $1,417.00 (mean $15.75 +/- 13.06).

79 inappropriate stress ulcer prophylaxis for a drug cost of $2,272.00 (mean $25.53 +/- 25.52) compared

80 ne LA-ART became cost-effective at an annual drug cost of $26 000-$31 000 and $24 000-$27 000, vs $28

81 a relative risk of PF of 0.775, and up to a drug cost of $2817.

82 failures became cost-effective at an annual drug cost of $48 000; in sensitivity analysis, this thre

83 With an average daily drug cost of 6.38 dollars, ISDN/HYD therapy was dominant

84 20, the surgery group incurred a mean annual drug cost of US $930; the control patients, $1123 (adjus

85 d will depend on choosing between the higher drug cost of zoledronic acid, with its shorter, more con

86 Measuring the direct drug costs of an anaesthetic is relatively easy, but ass

87 , and address the economics of antimicrobial drugs (cost of use vs profit).

88 ing medications as low as 25%, high Shanghai drug costs, or low medication efficacy led to the most u

89 ospitalizations and related costs (excluding drug costs) over 7 years follow-up.

90 kets, but the most effective way to decrease drug costs overall is the appropriate use of domestic ge

91 mean $1270 savings per patient (exclusive of drug cost) (P = .018).

92 We calculated total drug costs (prices) and OOP payments per patient per mon

93 d a cap of 750 dollars, yearly out-of-pocket drug costs ranged from 564 dollars to 4201 dollars (5th-

94 that mean ($3,397,344) or median ($947,032) drug cost savings could have offset the estimated cost o

95 ine the need for dose titrations and measure drug cost savings on conversion to generic tacrolimus.

96 rug acquisition costs were used to calculate drug cost savings.

97 Recent changes in US prescription drug cost sharing could affect access to them.

98 heparin rather than bivalirudin would reduce drug costs substantially.

99 it thresholds had a lower median incremental drug cost than did those that did not meet benefit thres

100 Reducing annual drug costs to $4536 per patient or less would be needed

101 Direct drug costs, ventilator time, and lengths of stay were re

102 or STD case treated was $10.15, of which the drug cost was $2.11.

103 e was not cost-effective if either the total drug cost was greater than $A16,000 per annum, or the an

104 pital cost, including professional and study drug costs, was $12,145 +/- 5,882 with placebo versus $1

105 Mean monthly drug costs were $645 for brand, $593 for generic, and $5

106 Drug costs were 6,324 US dollars (66% of the total), whi

107 Drug costs were based on average daily consumption and w

108 Drug costs were based on Medicare reimbursement rates in

109 ICU drug costs were calculated both as the percentage of tot

110 Drug costs were collected at the National Database of He

111 When study drug costs were excluded, both heart failure-related and

112 When NSAID/coxib drug costs were included, costs were significantly less

113 , ASCO benefit score and monthly incremental drug costs were negatively correlated (rho=-0.207; p=0.0

114 of study medication ($39,648 v $43,048 when drug costs were not included; P =.416).

115 The initial CD4 cell count and drug costs were the most important determinants of costs

116 randomised controlled trial (ie, incremental drug cost) were derived from 2016 average wholesale pric

117 nt had been stopped in patients without EVR, drug costs would have been reduced by more than 20%.