Search

Background: Previous analyses of real-life data indicated that injection frequency and health care costs did not differ for anti-VEGF treatment with aflibercept and ranibizumab. The objective of this study was to investigate whether this finding persisted when analysing a longer time period after licensing.Methods: Retrospective analysis of health insurance claims data of two large Swiss basic health insurance plans including 28% of the Swiss population. Patients qualified for inclusion if aflibercept or ranibizumab treatment had been initiated between June 1, 2013 and November 1, 2014. Within this set, patients with at least 12 months of continuous insurance enrolment in the previous year, 12-month follow-up, and without change of anti-VEGF drug were considered. We examined the distribution of demographic data and patient characteristics between those receiving ranibizumab and those receiving aflibercept. Numbers of injections and associated health care expenditures observed during the 12-month follow-up period after incident treatment were the two outcomes considered. In multivariate regression analyses, controlling for possible confounding factors, we compared differences in these two outcomes between patients treated with aflibercept as compared to ranibizumab.Results: A total of 3'058 patients were analysed, 790 (26%) receiving aflibercept and 2`268 receiving ranibizumab (74%). The use of aflibercept (average number of injections 6.2) as compared to ranibizumab (average number of injections 5.7) in the follow-up period of 1 to 12 months, was associated with a 12% increase in the injection frequency (95% confidence interval (CI) 6-17%; p < 0.001).Conclusions: Real-life data contradicts the assumption that aflibercept is used less frequently as compared to ranibizumab. This results in similar total health care expenditures for both anti-VEGF agents. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Asthma exacerbations are frequent in patients with severe disease. This report describes results from two retrospective cohort studies describing exacerbation frequency and risk, emergency department (ED)/hospital re-admissions, and asthma-related costs by asthma severity in the US and UK.Methods: Patients with asthma in the US-based Clinformatics™ DataMart Multiplan IMPACT (2010-2011; WEUSKOP7048) and the UK-based Clinical Practice Research Datalink (2009-2011; WEUSKOP7092) databases were categorized by disease severity (Global Initiative for Asthma [GINA]; Step and exacerbation history) during the 12 months pre-asthma medical code (index date). Outcomes included: frequency of exacerbations (asthma-related ED visit, hospitalization, or oral corticosteroid use with an asthma medical code recorded within ±2 weeks) 12 months post-index, asthma-related ED visits/hospitalization, and asthma-related costs 30 days post-index. Risk of a subsequent exacerbation was determined by proportional hazard model.Results: Of the 222,817 and 211,807 patients with asthma included from the US and UK databases, respectively, 12.5 and 8.4% experienced ≥1 exacerbation during the follow-up period. Exacerbation frequency increased with disease severity. Among the 5,167 and 2,904 patients with an asthma-related ED visit/hospitalization in the US and UK databases, respectively, 9.2 and 4.7% had asthma-related re-admissions within 30 days. Asthma-related re-admission rates and costs increased with disease severity, approximately doubling between GINA Step 1 and 5 and in patients with ≥2 versus <2 exacerbations in the previous year. Risk of a subsequent exacerbation increased 32-35% for an exacerbation requiring ED visit/hospitalization versus oral corticosteroids.Conclusion: Increased disease severity was associated with higher exacerbation frequency, ED/hospitalization re-admission, costs and risk of subsequent exacerbation, indicating that these patients require high-intensity post-exacerbation management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Severe malaria is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in under-fives in sub-Saharan Africa. Recently quinine has been replaced by artesunate as the first-line drug in the treatment of severe malaria in Cameroon. Artesunate has been shown to be cost-effective in African children, but whether these findings are transferable to Cameroonian children remains to be explored. Objectives: To conduct a cost-analysis of four different regimens used in the treatment from the perspective of the healthcare payer. Methods: An economic evaluation alongside a randomized comparative study was conducted in children aged 3 months to 15 years, admitted at the Ebolowa Regional Hospital with severe malaria due to Plasmodium falciparum. Patients were randomized to receive one of the four treatment alternatives. Group 1 (ARTES) received parenteral artesunate at 2.4 mg/kg at H0, H12, H24 and then once daily; Group 2 (QLD) received a loading dose of quinine base at 16.6 mg/kg followed 8 h later by an 8-hourly maintenance dose of 8.3 mg/kg quinine base; Group 3 (QNLD3) received 8.3 mg/kg quinine base every 8 h, and Group 4 (QNLD2) received 12.5 mg/kg quinine base every 12 h. The main outcome measure for effectiveness of treatment was the parasite reduction rate. Based on a healthcare perspective, an evaluation of direct medical costs was done, including costs of anti-malarials, nursing care materials, adjuvant treatment, laboratory investigations, hospitalisation and professional fees. Guided by a cost minimalization approach, the relative costs of these treatment alternatives was compared and reported. Results: Overall cost was higher for ARTES group at $65.14 (95% CI $57.68-72.60) than for quinine groups ($52.49-$62.40), but the difference was not statistically significant. Cost of the anti-malarial drug was significantly higher for artesunate-treated patients than for quinine-treated patients, whereas cost of hospitalization was significantly lower for artesunate-treated patients than for quinine-treated patients. Incremental analysis of ARTES against QLD as a baseline resulted in an ICER of $46.8/PRR24 and suggests ARTES as the most cost effective of all four treatment options. Conclusion: Artesunate is a cost effective malaria treatment option relative to quinine alternatives with the lowest incremental cost per unit of effectiveness. Trial registration clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT02563704. Registered 19 September 2015, retrospectively registered [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: A small proportion of patients account for the majority of health care spending. The objectives of this study were to explore the clinical characteristics, patterns of health care use, and the proportion of acute care spending deemed potentially preventable among high cost inpatients within a Canadian acute-care hospital.Methods: We identified all individuals within the Ottawa Hospital with one or more inpatient hospitalization between April 1, 2010 and March 31, 2011. Clinical characteristics and frequency of hospital encounters were captured in the information systems of the Ottawa Hospital Data Warehouse. Direct inpatient costs for each encounter were summed using case costing information and those in the upper first and fifth percentiles of the cumulative direct cost distribution were defined as extremely high cost and high cost respectively. We quantified preventable acute care spending as hospitalizations for ambulatory care sensitive conditions (ACSC) and spending attributable to difficulty discharging patients as measured by alternate level of care (ALC) status.Results: During the study period, 36,892 patients had 44,066 hospitalizations. High cost patients (n = 1,844) accounted for 38 % of total inpatient spending ($122 million) and were older, more likely to be male, and had higher levels of co-morbidity compared to non-high cost patients. In over half of the high cost cohort (54 %), costs were accumulated from a single hospitalization. The majority of costs were related to nursing care and intensive care unit spending. High cost patients were more likely to have an encounter deemed to be ambulatory care sensitive compared to non-high cost inpatients (6.0 versus 2.8 %, p < 0.001). A greater proportion of inpatient spending was attributable to ALC days for high cost versus non-high cost patients (9.1 versus 4.9 %, p < 0.001).Conclusions: Within a population of high cost inpatients, the majority of costs are attributed to a single, non-preventable, acute care episode. However, there are likely opportunities to improve hospital efficiency by focusing on different approaches to community based care directed towards specific populations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is a form of chronic fibrosing interstitial pneumonia characterized by progressive worsening of dyspnea and lung function, with a poor prognosis. The objective of this study was to determine treatment patterns, resource use and costs of managing Spanish patients with IPF.Methods: A three-round Delphi consensus panel of 15 clinical experts was held between December 2012 and June 2013 using questionnaires to describe the management of patients with IPF. A cost analysis based on Delphi panel estimates was made from the Spanish National Health System (NHS) perspective, including the direct costs of IPF diagnosis and management. Unit costs were applied to Delphi panel estimates of health resource use. Univariate sensitivity analyses were made to evaluate uncertainties in parameters.Results: The Delphi panel estimated that 20, 60 and 20% of IPF patients presented with stable disease, slow and rapid disease progression, respectively. The estimated annual cost per patient with stable disease, slow and rapid disease progression was €11,484, €20,978 and €57,759, respectively. This corresponds to a weighted average annual cost of €26,435 with itemized costs of €1,184 (4.5), €7,147 (27.0), €5,950 (22.5), €11,666 (44.1) and €488 (1.9%) for the diagnosis of IPF, treatment, monitoring, management of acute exacerbations and end-of-life care, respectively. The parameter that varied the annual cost per patient the most was resource use associated with acute exacerbations.Conclusions: The management of patients with IPF in Spain, especially patients with rapid disease progression, has a high economic impact on the NHS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patients with rare and ultra-rare diseases make heavy demands on the resources of both health and social services, but these resources are often used inefficiently due to delays in diagnosis, poor and fragmented care. We analysed the national service for an ultra-rare disease, Alstrom syndrome, and compared the outcome and cost of the service to the standard care.Methods: Between the 9th and 26th of March 2014 we undertook a cross-sectional study of the UK Alstrom syndrome patients and their carers. We developed a semi-structured questionnaire to assess our rare patient need, quality of care and costs incurred to patients and their careers. In the UK all Alstrom syndrome patients are seen in two centres, based in Birmingham, and we systematically evaluated the national service and compared the quality and cost of care with patients' previous standard of care.Results: One quarter of genetically confirmed Alstrom syndrome UK patients were enrolled in this study. Patients that have access to a highly specialised clinical service reported that their care is well organised, personalised, holistic, and that they have a say in their care. All patients reported high level of satisfaction in their care. Patient treatment compliance and clinic attendance was better in multidisciplinary clinic than the usual standard of NHS care. Following a variable costing approach based on personnel and consumables' cost, our valuation of the clinics was just under £700/patient/annum compared to the standard care of £960/patient/annum. Real savings, however, came in terms of patients' quality of life. Furthermore there was found to have been a significant reduction in frequency of clinic visits and ordering of investigations since the establishment of the national service.Conclusions: Our study has shown that organised, multidisciplinary "one stop" clinics are patient centred and individually tailored to the patient need with a better outcome and comparable cost compared with the current standard of care for rare disease. Our proposed care model can be adapted to several other rare and ultra-rare diseases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Depression accounts for the greatest disease burden of all mental health disorders, contributes heavily to healthcare costs, and by 2020 is set to become the second largest cause of global disability. Although 10% to 16% of people aged 65 years and over are likely to experience depressive symptoms, the condition is under-diagnosed and often inadequately treated in primary care. Later-life depression is associated with chronic illness and disability, cognitive impairment and social isolation. With a progressively ageing population it becomes increasingly important to refine strategies to identity and manage depression in older people. Currently, management may be limited to the prescription of antidepressants where there may be poor concordance; older people may lack awareness of psychosocial interventions and general practitioners may neglect to offer this treatment option.Methods/design: CASPER Plus is a multi-centre, randomised controlled trial of a collaborative care intervention for individuals aged 65 years and over experiencing moderate to severe depression. Selected practices in the North of England identify potentially eligible patients and invite them to participate in the study. A diagnostic interview is carried out and participants with major depressive disorder are randomised to either collaborative care or usual care. The recruitment target is 450 participants. The intervention, behavioural activation and medication management in a collaborative care framework, has been adapted to meet the complex needs of older people. It is delivered over eight to 10 weekly sessions by a case manager liaising with general practitioners. The trial aims to evaluate the clinical and cost effectiveness of collaborative care in addition to usual GP care versus usual GP care alone. The primary clinical outcome, depression severity, will be measured with the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) at baseline, 4, 12 and 18 months. Cost effectiveness analysis will assess health-related quality of life using the SF-12 and EQ-5D and will examine cost-consequences of collaborative care. A qualitative process evaluation will be undertaken to explore acceptability, gauge the extent to which the intervention is implemented and to explore sustainability beyond the clinical trial.Discussion: Results will add to existing evidence and a positive outcome may lead to the commissioning of this model of service in primary care.Trial Registration: ISRCTN45842879 (24 July 2012). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]