This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by DiDomenico, R. J. Articles by Bauman, J. L. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by DiDomenico, R. J. Articles by Bauman, J. L. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Analysis of the Use of Digoxin Immune Fab for the Treatment of Non-Life-Threatening Digoxin Toxicity

Departments of Pharmacy Practice at the College of Medicine, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL

Surrey M. Walton

Pharmacy Administration at the College of Pharmacy, University of Illinois at Chicago, IL

Cynthia A. Sanoski

College of Pharmacy and Allied Health Professions, St. John's University, Jamaica, NY

Jerry L. Bauman

Departments of Pharmacy Practice at the College of Medicine, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, Section of Cardiology at the College of Medicine, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL

Background: Studies indicate that digoxin toxicity often results in lengthy hospitalizations and considerable costs, both of which may be decreased through the routine use of digoxin immune Fab (FAB).

Methods: A computer-based decision analysis model was developed to compare the treat ment of non-life-threatening digoxin toxicity with either FAB or standard therapy from the hospital perspective. A cost-minimization analysis was then performed to compare overall total costs (primary endpoint) for each treatment branch. A secondary endpoint of length of hospital stay (LOS) was also compared between the 2 groups. Clinical variables (serum digoxin concentration [SDC], creatinine clearance [Clcr], and body weight), event probabili ties, and other model-specific variables were varied in univariate and multivariate sensitivity analyses.

Results: FAB was associated with an incremental cost of $54 compared with standard therapy ($2,784 vs. $2,730, respectively) but reduced LOS by 1.5 days (1.5 days vs. 3.0 days, respectively). Sensitivity analyses show that FAB is less costly at SDC > 3.5 ng/mL and Clcr < 22 mL/min. FAB reduced LOS at SDC > 2.3 ng/mL. Monte Carlo simulation revealed that FAB was less costly in 37% of the cases and reduced LOS 72% of the time compared with standard therapy.

Conclusions: The abbreviated LOS associated with the use of FAB in patients with non-life- threatening digoxin toxicity may translate into lower treatment costs in many clinical sce narios, making it a cost-saving alternative to standard therapy in patients with high SDC and renal dysfunction.

Key Words: pharmacoeconomics • cost minimization.

Journal of Cardiovascular Pharmacology and Therapeutics, Vol. 5, No. 2, 77-85 (2000)
DOI: 10.1053/XV.2000.5590


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				B. Kirrane, R. Olmedo, L. Nelson, M. Mercurio-Zappala, M. Howland, and R. Hoffman Inconsistent approach to the treatment of chronic digoxin toxicity in the United States Human and Experimental Toxicology, May 1, 2009; 28(5): 285 - 292. [Abstract] [PDF]