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 th or without diabetes but were sensitive to drug cost.

3 d-generation antipsychotics because of lower drug cost.

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

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

6 tions were cost-effective at previous higher drug costs.

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

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

9 It is unknown how these initiatives affect drug costs.

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

11 use of increased pressures to control rising drug costs.

12 ors, and pharmacist consultation has reduced drug costs.

13 , despite universal coverage of prescription drug costs.

14 ted with 1.3% higher medical and 1.8% higher drug costs.

15 onged-duration prescriptions with $14 470 in drug costs.

16 ed that would allow greater uptake and lower drug costs.

17 uration antibiotic prescriptions, as well as drug costs.

18 $1,100 higher medical costs and $100 higher drug costs.

19 n 2.7% (95% CI, 1.6%-3.7%; P < .001) more in drug costs.

20 The delivery costs do not include drug costs.

21 ist patients in overcoming high prescription drug costs.

22 limited unless there is a large reduction in drug costs.

23 regimens could offset potential increases in drug costs.

24 e QALYs but accumulated substantially higher drug costs.

25 e correlations between framework outputs and drug costs.

26 6.1% (95% CI, 5.8%-6.4%) of the chemotherapy drug costs.

27 otomy and laboratory monitoring, and overall drug costs.

28 suppressive drugs, likely resulting in lower drug costs.

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

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

31 assuming a range of essential medicines list drug costs.

32 ere sensitive to rates of rhabdomyolysis and drug costs.

33 rategies for the reduction of antiretroviral drug costs.

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

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

36 of ovarian cancer is primarily dependent on drug costs.

37 ing and often report behavioral responses to drug costs.

38 tate provision of medications by subsidizing drug costs.

39 ing was associated with reduced health care (drug) costs.

40 d higher estimated intravenous (iv) dialysis drug costs (1.69; 95% CI, 1.64 to 1.73), rehabilitation

41 cal vignette, a patient was prescribed a new drug costing $1000/month without insurance.

42 pectively, with donanemab, driven largely by drug costs ($119 000 for aducanumab and $44 600 for dona

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

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

45 rug costs were assumed in place of median US drug costs ($27 900 per QALY gained in 10 years).

46 for rifampin-resistant tuberculosis (current drug costs $432).

47 r rifampin-susceptible tuberculosis (current drug costs $46) and $2100 (1590-2810) in India, $2610 in

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

56 sensitivity analyses, high antihypertensive drug cost and lower treatment efficacy for CVD death res

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

58 cesses, staffing and administrative support, drug costs and acquisition, and access for individuals w

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

60 The associations between drug costs and clinical value, both before and after neg

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

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

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

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

65 Rising prescription drug costs and increasing prices for consumer goods may

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

67 lts were most sensitive to healing efficacy, drug cost, and health utility of the healing state.

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

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

70 to simplified payment administration, lower drug costs, and other factors.

71 , quantity of cenegermin prescription, gross drug costs, and patient out-of-pocket costs were extract

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

73 may accelerate research on new drugs, reduce drug costs, and reduce the reliance on laboratory animal

74 Highest drug costs are associated with total intravenous anesthe

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

76 n Act, which will cap Medicare out-of-pocket drug costs at $2,000/year and expand full low-income sub

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

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

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

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

81 ision-making, implementing policies to lower drug costs, broadening insurance coverage, and using fin

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

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

84 atment attempt, the regimen could reduce non-drug costs by 32-42% (22-49) and would be cost saving at

85 ease in budget or a substantial reduction of drug costs by price negotiations, and these findings can

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

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

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

89 High out-of-pocket prescription drug costs contribute to financial toxicity, medication

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

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

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

93 Estimated iv drug costs declined by US$2900 per patient-year in hemod

94 Drug cost drives the cost differences between each strat

95 Price reductions can make this drug cost effective.

96 orten the path for drug development, enhance drug cost-effectiveness and improve patient outcomes.

97 ), respectively, indicating that the rise in drug costs exceeded adjustments for medical care or pres

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

99 Four studies found reduced drug costs for 1-on-1 outreach compared with other CPD a

100 changed significantly, but the variation of drug costs for a given value was reduced.

101 ay threshold of $50 000 per QALY, the annual drug costs for a hypothetical indefinite therapy with a

102 and compared projected annual out-of-pocket drug costs for each condition in 2022 (baseline), 2023 (

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

104 We assumed that drug costs for minimal and optimal regimens were identic

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

106 reduce Medicare beneficiaries' out-of-pocket drug costs for the selected cardiovascular conditions by

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

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

109 ence, country-level income data, and data on drug costs from Redbook (USA), the Pharmaceutical Benefi

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

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

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

113 ions experiencing out-of-pocket prescription drug costs >$2,000/year and estimate their potential sav

114 The likelihood of experiencing out-of-pocket drug costs >$2,000/year was lower among adults >=75 year

115 020,484 +/- 77,055 experienced out-of-pocket drug costs >$2,000/year.

116 Off-patent brand-name drugs (cost: >$10 000) were covered by a mean of 3.1 (SD

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

118 Rising drug costs have increased interest in performance-linked

119 es to help patients manage high prescription drug costs highlights the structural and policy challeng

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

121 ation prescriptions (>7 days) and antibiotic drug costs (in Canadian dollars).

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

123 Psychotropic drug costs increased during the first year after initiat

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

125 Conclusion Anticancer drug costs may change substantially after launch.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

136 Total gross drug cost of all cenegermin therapy over the study perio

137 20, the surgery group incurred a mean annual drug cost of US $930; the control patients, $1123 (adjus

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

139 s could be cost-neutral in the short term at drug costs of $140 (90-210) per full course in India, $2

140 LYs]) over a lifetime horizon, using new HCV drug costs of $25 000/treatment.

141 Incremental costs consisted of total drug costs of $29 586 and savings of $3329 from reduced

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

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

144 The adverse effects of prescription drug costs on medication adherence and health have been

145 ast drug procurement, and calculate expected drug costs on the basis of local data.

146 ined the impact of varying mortality and 5FC drug costs on the ICER.

147 ystems that provide greater transparency for drug costs or automate substitution of equivalent cheape

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

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

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

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

152 ed by an international agency, the annual US drug cost per patient was estimated from FDA labeling an

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

154 comprised 2.4% (95% CI, 2.2%-2.5%) of total drug costs, providing mean net annual cost savings of US

155 increase, and savings on administration and drug costs (R2 of 0.035, 0.43, and 0.62, respectively).

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

157 s associated with reduced health care costs (drug costs), ranging from $4731 to $6 912 000 (median, $

158 ualitative study suggest that opacity around drug costs reduces access for patients and is followed b

159 This economic evaluation found that drug costs related to MBC treatment increased between 20

160 with current practice if antiviral treatment drug costs remain below $894/year.

161 longed-duration prescriptions and antibiotic drug costs, respectively.

162 and a 6.1% relative reduction in antibiotic drug costs (RR, 0.94; 97.5% CI, 0.89-0.99; P = .01).

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

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

165 prolonged-duration prescriptions and $771 in drug cost savings per PCP over 12 months.

166 Only drug cost savings remained significant in multivariate a

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

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

169 prescription denials aimed to curb immediate drug costs, some denials prompted heightened acute care

170 heparin rather than bivalirudin would reduce drug costs substantially.

171 ve, has acceptable toxicity, and incurs less drug cost than 2 cycles of bleomycin, etoposide, and cis

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

173 Excluding drug costs, the cost per encounter for the visits with a

174 Including the drug costs, the costs per encounter for the visits with

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

176 ug utilization (prescription drug fills) and drug costs (total costs and out-of-pocket costs).

177 al per-patient treatment and supportive care drug cost using publicly available Medicare prices was $

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

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

180 Lifetime drug cost was $54 754, and treatment saved $18 499 in MA

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

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

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

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

185 er QALY gained at 30 years) and when generic drug costs were assumed in place of median US drug costs

186 Drug costs were based on average daily consumption and w

187 Drug costs were based on Medicare reimbursement rates in

188 ere favored over bariatric surgery only when drug costs were below $5000 per year (base cost $12 077)

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

190 Per-drug costs were calculated from all R&D activity through

191 Drug costs were collected at the National Database of He

192 If long-acting injectable cabotegravir drug costs were equal to those of tenofovir disoproxil f

193 Drug costs were estimated using the wholesale acquisitio

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

195 dian compounded annual growth rates for most drug costs were higher than the annual inflation rate an

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

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

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

199 n adherence across parents with higher child drug costs were observed.

200 oth arms, as usual in China, most outpatient drug costs were out of pocket.

201 across multiple drug classes was higher and drug costs were significantly lower for adults with diab

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

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

204 It is important to understand to what extent drug costs, which are potentially actionable factors, co

205 essional services, emergency department, and drug costs, which were obtained from the Center for Medi

206 ormulating evidence-based policies to reduce drug costs while maintaining the industry's ability to i

207 cost benefits by the offsetting of biologic drug costs with a reduction in costly inpatient hospital

208 wanted to discuss out-of-pocket prescription drug costs with patients but did not.

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