Search

Background: In a previous single center study we found that a standardized drug treatment algorithm (ALGO) was more cost effective than treatment as usual (TAU) for inpatients with major depression. This report aimed to determine whether this promising initial finding could be replicated in a multicenter study.Methods: Treatment costs were calculated for two time periods: the study period (from enrolment to exit from study) and time in hospital (from enrolment to hospital discharge) based on daily hospital charges. Cost per remitted patient during the study period was considered as primary outcome.Results: 266 patients received ALGO and 84 received TAU. For the study period, ALGO costs were significantly lower than TAU (ALGO: 7 848 ± 6 065 €; TAU: 10 033 ± 7 696 €; p = 0.04). For time in hospital, costs were not different (ALGO: 14 734 ± 8 329 €; TAU: 14 244 ± 8 419 €; p = 0.617). Remission rates did not differ for the study period (ALGO: 57.9%, TAU: 50.0%; p=0.201). Remission rates were greater in ALGO (83.3%) than TAU (66.2%) for time in hospital (p = 0.002). Cost per remission was lower in ALGO (13 554 ± 10 476 €) than TAU (20 066 ± 15 391 €) for the study period (p < 0.001) and for time in hospital (ALGO: 17 582 ± 9 939 €; TAU: 21 516 ± 12 718 €; p = 0.036).Limitations: Indirect costs were not assessed. Different dropout rates in TAU and ALGO complicated interpretation.Conclusions: Treatment algorithms enhance the cost effectiveness of the care of depressed inpatients, which replicates our prior results in an independent sample. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patients with asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) overlap syndrome (ACOS) have more rapid disease progression and more exacerbations than do those with either condition alone. Little research has been performed, however, in these patients.Objective: The objective was to summarize the health care utilization, costs, and comorbidities of patients with uncontrolled asthma and patients with ACOS.Methods: This retrospective analysis used medical and pharmacy claims from large commercial health plans. The study included patients 6 years or older with a diagnosis of asthma and one or more asthma exacerbation (index event). Patients were classified as having asthma alone or ACOS, and the two groups were matched for age, sex, region, index year, index month, and health plan type. Outcomes included rates of comorbid disease, health care utilization, and costs during the 12 months before and after the index exacerbation.Results: Among the matched patients with asthma (6,505 ACOS; 26,060 without COPD), mean annual all-cause health care costs were twice as high as for patients with ACOS ($22,393 vs. $11,716; P < 0.0001). Asthma-related costs, representing 29% of total costs, were nearly twice as high among patients with ACOS ($6,319 vs. 3,356; P < 0.0001). Cost differences were driven by large differences in the proportions of patients with an inpatient hospitalization (34.0% vs. 14.6%; P < 0.0001) or emergency department visit (29.6% vs. 19.9%; P < 0.0001). Nearly all prespecified comorbid conditions were more prevalent in the ACOS group.Conclusions: Patients with asthma and COPD had nearly double the health care costs as did patients with asthma without COPD. The overall disease profile of patients with asthma should be considered when managing patients, rather than treating asthma as a solitary condition. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To compare the cost of two treatment regimens for moderate to severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS): conservative inpatient versus outpatient management with paracentesis.Design: A decision-tree mathematical model comparing conservative inpatient versus outpatient management of moderate to severe OHSS was created. The common final pathway of either management was resolution of OHSS. Sensitivity analyses were performed over the range of variables.Main Outcome Measure(s): Total management cost of OHSS.Result(s): The cost of conservative therapy including first-tier complications was $10,099 (range $9,655-$15,044). The cost of outpatient management with paracentesis was $1954 (range $788-$12,041). This resulted in an estimated cost savings of $8145 with outpatient management with paracentesis. One-way sensitivity analyses were performed. Varying the probability of admission after outpatient treatment still indicated that outpatient treatment was the most cost-effective (probability = 1.0, cost = $6110). Varying the duration of hospitalization with primary inpatient treatment was equal to outpatient treatment costs only at a stay of 0.71 days or shorter.Conclusion(s): Our model suggests early outpatient paracentesis for moderate to severe OHSS is the most cost-effective management plan when compared with traditional conservative inpatient therapy. The cost savings for outpatient management persisted throughout a variety of outcome probabilities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]