hepatic encephalopathy
Hepatology · 2011–2019
Every decision
| Medicine | Meeting | Outcome | Consumer input |
|---|---|---|---|
| rifaximin Prevention of the recurrence of hepatic encephalopathy where other treatments have failed or are contraindicated. | Jul 2019 | Not recommended | input received |
| rifaximin Prevention of hepatic encephalopathy in adult patients who have had prior episodes of hepatic encephalopathy, in combination with lactulose. | Jul 2012 | Deferred | no section in document |
| rifaximin Prevention of hepatic encephalopathy in adult patients who have had prior episodes of hepatic encephalopathy, in combination with lactulose. | Jul 2012 | Not recommended | no section in document |
| rifaximin Prevention of the recurrence of hepatic encephalopathy in adult patients who have had prior episodes of hepatic encephalopathy, in combination with lactulose. | Nov 2012 | Deferred | no section in document |
| rifaximin Prevention of recurrence of hepatic encephalopathy in adult patients who have had prior episodes of hepatic encephalopathy, in combination with lactulose. | Nov 2011 | Not recommended | unclear |
What the PBS pays
$20M in government benefit over 2024–25, across 44,114 services.
This is spend on the medicines considered for this condition, not spend on the disease. A medicine used for several conditions is counted in full under each, so figures across conditions add to more than national PBS expenditure.
| Medicine | Government benefit |
|---|---|
| rifaximin | $19.7M |
Appraised elsewhere
NICE, in England and Wales, has appraised 1 technology for this condition, recommending 1 . A different committee, a different population and a different price: this is what has been looked at there, not a verdict on what happened here.
| Technology | Appraisal | Outcome | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| rifaximinRifaximin for preventing episodes of overt hepatic encephalopathy | TA337 | recommended | 2015-03 |
Conditions are classified by a language model from the indication text of each submission, so an individual label here can be wrong. Consumer input is read from the document's own consumer comments section: 1 of 1 decisions since 2014 carried some. Silence means no comment reached the committee through that facility, not that nobody was affected. More on how this was built.