File Download
  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
  • Find via Find It@HKUL
Supplementary

Article: Cost-minimisation analysis of midazolam versus droperidol in the management of acute agitation in the emergency department

TitleCost-minimisation analysis of midazolam versus droperidol in the management of acute agitation in the emergency department
Authors
Issue Date2012
PublisherSociety of Hospital Pharmacists of Australia. The Journal's web site is located at http://jppr.shpa.org.au/scripts/cgiip.exe/WService=SHPAJP/ccms.r
Citation
Journal of Pharmacy Practice and Research, 2012, v. 42 n. 1, p. 11-16 How to Cite?
AbstractAim: To compare the costs of midazolam and droperidol for the management of acute agitation in the emergency department (ED). Method: A decision analysis model was used to undertake a cost-minimisation analysis of resource utilisation in the ED of a Melbourne hospital. Data from acutely agitated patients who received midazolam (n = 74) or droperidol (n = 79) in a randomised clinical trial (February 2002 to April 2004) were reviewed. Results: All direct medical and non-medical costs relating to the management of acute agitation in the ED were analysed. The average cost scenario was estimated for the 2 treatments. The model simulated 9 possible outcomes based on whether patients were 'sedated' or 'not sedated' and whether they required 're-dosing' or 'no re-dosing'. Hospitalisation cost incorporated multiple items as part of the average cost per service code for the ED length of stay. In the base case analysis, midazolam was associated with notably less overall drug costs (A$3.05 vs A$21.10), which contributed to less total treatment costs. The 'expected' median ED length of stay was marginally longer in the midazolam group (12 vs 11.8 hours), resulting in slightly higher hospitalisation costs (A$1370 vs A$1361). The midazolam group incurred higher median costs for pathology (A$78.60 vs A$61.60) and imaging (A$5.25 vs A$0.60). The cost of electrocardiograms was similar (A$27.10 vs A$28). With a cost advantage of A$59 per patient, midazolam was 3.8% less costly than droperidol (A$1496 vs A$1555). Conclusion: Midazolam was marginally more cost saving than droperidol when used to manage acute agitation in the ED. Several challenges were identified that need to be overcome to enable future robust pharmacoeconomic studies
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/186136
ISSN
2015 SCImago Journal Rankings: 0.160

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorChan, EWYen_US
dc.contributor.authorKnott, JCen_US
dc.contributor.authorLiew, Den_US
dc.contributor.authorTaylor, DMCDen_US
dc.contributor.authorKong, DCMen_US
dc.date.accessioned2013-08-20T11:56:23Z-
dc.date.available2013-08-20T11:56:23Z-
dc.date.issued2012en_US
dc.identifier.citationJournal of Pharmacy Practice and Research, 2012, v. 42 n. 1, p. 11-16en_US
dc.identifier.issn1445-937X-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/186136-
dc.description.abstractAim: To compare the costs of midazolam and droperidol for the management of acute agitation in the emergency department (ED). Method: A decision analysis model was used to undertake a cost-minimisation analysis of resource utilisation in the ED of a Melbourne hospital. Data from acutely agitated patients who received midazolam (n = 74) or droperidol (n = 79) in a randomised clinical trial (February 2002 to April 2004) were reviewed. Results: All direct medical and non-medical costs relating to the management of acute agitation in the ED were analysed. The average cost scenario was estimated for the 2 treatments. The model simulated 9 possible outcomes based on whether patients were 'sedated' or 'not sedated' and whether they required 're-dosing' or 'no re-dosing'. Hospitalisation cost incorporated multiple items as part of the average cost per service code for the ED length of stay. In the base case analysis, midazolam was associated with notably less overall drug costs (A$3.05 vs A$21.10), which contributed to less total treatment costs. The 'expected' median ED length of stay was marginally longer in the midazolam group (12 vs 11.8 hours), resulting in slightly higher hospitalisation costs (A$1370 vs A$1361). The midazolam group incurred higher median costs for pathology (A$78.60 vs A$61.60) and imaging (A$5.25 vs A$0.60). The cost of electrocardiograms was similar (A$27.10 vs A$28). With a cost advantage of A$59 per patient, midazolam was 3.8% less costly than droperidol (A$1496 vs A$1555). Conclusion: Midazolam was marginally more cost saving than droperidol when used to manage acute agitation in the ED. Several challenges were identified that need to be overcome to enable future robust pharmacoeconomic studies-
dc.languageengen_US
dc.publisherSociety of Hospital Pharmacists of Australia. The Journal's web site is located at http://jppr.shpa.org.au/scripts/cgiip.exe/WService=SHPAJP/ccms.r-
dc.relation.ispartofJournal of Pharmacy Practice and Researchen_US
dc.titleCost-minimisation analysis of midazolam versus droperidol in the management of acute agitation in the emergency departmenten_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.identifier.emailChan, EW: ewchan@hku.hken_US
dc.identifier.emailKong, DCM: David.Kong@monash.edu-
dc.identifier.authorityChan, WYE=rp01587en_US
dc.description.naturelink_to_OA_fulltext-
dc.identifier.hkuros218708en_US
dc.identifier.volume42en_US
dc.identifier.issue1-
dc.identifier.spage11en_US
dc.identifier.epage16en_US
dc.publisher.placeAustralia-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats