ARTICLE
TITLE

Comparative efficacy, safety, and cost of iron chelation monotherapy vs. combination therapy in pediatric beta-thalassemia major: a single-center retrospective study

SUMMARY

Background Iron chelation therapy is used to maintain iron balance in β-thalassemia major patients who undergo repeated blood transfusions.Objective To compare the efficacy, safety, and cost of iron chelation combination regimens [deferiprone (DFP) + deferoxamine (DFO) or DFP + deferasirox (DFX])] vs. high-dose DFP monotherapy (≥ 90 mg/kg/day) in pediatric β-thalassemia major patients.Methods This cross-sectional, retrospective study was done at Cipto Mangunkusumo Hospital, Jakarta, Indonesia. Retrospective data was obtained from electronic medical records of pediatric b-thalassemia major patients with serum ferritin of ≥ 2,500 ng/mL and/or transferrin saturation of ≥ 60%, who received either combination or monotherapy iron chelation agents. Outcome effectiveness was determined by the reduction of serum ferritin level of at least 80%. Safety was analyzed descriptively. A pharmacoeconomic analysis was performed based on clinical outcomes consisting of effectiveness and direct medical costs.Results At the end of the study, serum ferritin was reduced in 34.7% of the combination therapy group and 27.5% of the monotherapy group, however there was no significant difference between the two treatments (P=0.391). Nine (19.5%) patients on combination therapy and 17 (21.2%) patients on monotherapy had adverse drug reaction (ADR), with the most frequently reported ADR was elevated transaminase enzyme levels. Cost minimization analysis revealed that monotherapy for 6 months was IDR 13,556,592.64 less expensive than combination therapy (IDR 44,498,732.07); whereas monotherapy for 12 months was IDR 20,162,836.10 less expensive than combination therapy (IDR 78,877,661.12).Conclusion Combination regimens are as effective as monotherapy regimens in reducing serum ferritin in pediatric β-thalassemia major patients. There is no differences of ADR between combination or monotherapy. The average cost per patient is less expensive with monotherapy compared to combination therapy.

 Articles related

Paolo Maria Congedo, Delia D’Agostino, Cristina Baglivo, Giuliano Tornese and Ilaria Zacà    

The recast of the energy performance of buildings directive (EPBD) describes a comparative methodological framework to promote energy efficiency and establish minimum energy performance requirements in buildings at the lowest costs. The aim of the cost-o... see more

Revista: Energies

Muhammad Adil Khan, Byeonghun Ko, Esebi Alois Nyari, S. Eugene Park and Hee-Je Kim    

Reducing the price of solar photovoltaic (PV) systems has been a constant challenge. Despite recent advances, solar PV systems are still more costly than conventional energy resources. For the first time, this study examines the effectiveness of three di... see more

Revista: Energies

Luis Lopez-Fernandez, Pablo Rodriguez-Gonzalvez, David Hernandez-Lopez, Damian Ortega-Terol, Diego Gonzalez-Aguilera    

Although the generation of large points clouds from geomatic techniques allows us to realize the topography and appearance of the terrain and its infrastructures (e.g., roads, bridges, buildings, etc.), all these 3D point clouds require an unavoidable st... see more

Revista: Infrastructures

Paulo Roberto de Oliveira Bastos, Celmar Corrêa de Oliveira    

Este artigo apresenta o cenário das licitações sustentáveis na Comunidade Europeia (CE), contrastando com o cenário brasileiro, como instrumento de política ambiental. Neste estudo comparativo foram utilizados os seguintes parâmetros: Sustentabilidade Am... see more


Arif Dwi Adrianto Arif(1*), Ari Jumadi Kirnadi (2), Inda Ilma Ifada(3), (1) Fakultas Pertanian, Universitas Islam Kalimantan Muhammad Arsyad Al Banjari Banjarmasin (2) Fakultas Pertanian, Universitas Islam Kalimantan Muhammad Arsyad Al Banjari Banjarmasin (3) Fakultas Pertanian, Universitas Islam Kalimantan Muhammad Arsyad Al Banjari Banjarmasin (*) Corresponding Author    

The Tabing Rimbah Village and Puntik Dalam Village are villages located in Mandastana District. Tabing Rimbah Village with typology B has 482 m2 of land, while Puntik Dalam Village has 91 m2 of land with typology C. From land types B and C tidal in Manda... see more