These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Managing acute acetaminophen poisoning with oral versus intravenous N-acetylcysteine: a provider-perspective cost analysis.
    Author: Marchetti A, Rossiter R.
    Journal: J Med Econ; 2009; 12(4):384-91. PubMed ID: 19916738.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: Acetaminophen (APAP) overdose, which can lead to hepatotoxicity, is the most commonly reported poisoning in the United States and has the highest rate of mortality, with more than 100,000 exposures and 300 deaths reported annually (1) . The treatment of choice, N-acetylcysteine (NAC), is effective in both oral (PO) and intravenous (IV) formulations. The main difference in therapies, other than administration route, is time to complete delivery--72 hours for PO NAC versus 21 hours for IV NAC, according to full prescribing information. This distinction is the primary basis for variation in management costs for hospitalized patients receiving these products. OBJECTIVES: To quantify and compare full treatment costs from the provider perspective to manage acute APAP poisoning with either PO or IV NAC in a standard treatment regimen. METHODS: A cost model was developed and populated with published data comprising probabilities of potential clinical outcomes and the costs of resources consumed during patient care. RESULTS: For patients who present <10 hours post-ingestion, the estimated total cost of care with PO NAC in the treatment regimen is $5,817 (ICU patients) or $3,850, (ward patients) compared with $3,765 and $2,768 for similar care with IV NAC. Potential cost savings equal - $2,052 (-35%) or -$1,083 (-28%), respectively, in favor of IV NAC. Similar potential savings were estimated for patients presenting 10-24 hours post-ingestion. CONCLUSION: IV NAC is the less costly therapeutic option for APAP poisonings, based on simulation modeling and retrospective data. The current economic evaluation is restricted by the absence of comparative data from head-to-head, matched-cohort studies and the limitations common to retrospective APAP toxicology datasets. Additional research could refine these results.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]