Search

Introduction: Cost efficiency is important for hospitals in order to provide high-quality health care for all patients. As hemihepatectomies are increasingly being performed laparoscopically, the aims of this study were to evaluate the costs of laparoscopic hemihepatectomy and to compare them to conventional open techniques. Patients and methods: This is a retrospective analysis of clinical outcomes and financial calculations of all patients who underwent hemihepatectomy between January 2015 and December 2016 at the Department of Surgery, Campus Charité Mitte and Campus Charité Virchow-Klinikum, Berlin, Germany, being allocated to the DRG (diagnosis-related group) H01A (complex operations of the liver and pancreas with complex intensive care treatment) or H01B (operations of the liver and pancreas without complex intensive care treatment). To overcome selection bias, a 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was performed. Results: After PSM, a total of 64 patients were identified; 32 patients underwent laparoscopic hemihepatectomy (LH); and 32 patients received open hemihepatectomy (OH). After PSM, no significant differences were observed in clinical baseline characteristics. The duration of surgery was significantly longer for patients undergoing LH compared to OH (LH, 334 min, 186–655 min; OH, 274 min, 176–454 min; p = 0.005). Patients in the LH group had a significantly shortened median hospital stay of 5 d, when compared to OH (LH, 9.5 d, 3–35 d; OH, 14.5 d, 7–37d; p = 0.005). We observed a significant higher rate of postoperative complication in the OH group (p = 0.022). Cost analysis showed median overall costs of 17,369.85€ in the LH group and 16,103.64€ in the OH group (p = 0.390). Conclusion: Our data suggest that higher intraoperative costs of laparoscopic liver surgery, e.g., for surgical devices and due to longer operation times, are compensated by fewer postoperative complications and consecutive shorter length of stay when compared with OH. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: A cost minimisation analysis compares the costs of different interventions' to ascertain the least expensive over time. We compared different prostate targeted drug treatments with TURP to identify the optimal cost saving duration of a medical therapy for symptomatic benign prostatic enlargement (BPE). Methods: The Evolution registry is a prospective, multicentre registry, conducted by the European Association of Urology Research Foundation (EAUrf) for 24 months in 5 European countries. Evolution was designed to register the management of symptomatic BPE in clinical practice settings in 5 European countries. Direct cost evaluation associated with prostate targeted medical therapies and TURP was also recorded and analysed. Results: In total, 1838 men were enrolled with 1246 evaluable at 24 months. Medical therapies were more cost saving than TURP for treatment durations ranging from 2.9 to 70.4 years. Cost saving depended on both medication class and individual country assessed. Daily tamsulosin monotherapy was more cost saving than TURP for ≤ 13.9 years in Germany compared to ≤ 32.7 years in Italy. Daily finasteride monotherapy was more cost saving for ≤ 5.9 years in France compared to ≤ 36.9 years in Spain. Combination therapy was more cost saving for ≤ 5.9 years for Italian patients versus ≤ 13.8 years in Germany. Conclusions: BPE medical management was more cost saving than TURP for different specific treatment durations. Information from this study will allow clinicians to convey medical and surgical costs over time, to both patients and payors alike, when considering BPE treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Cost of illness studies are essential to estimate societal costs of chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (CIDP) and identify cost-driving factors.Methods: In total, 108 patients were recruited from 3 specialized neuroimmunological clinics. Costs were calculated for a 3-month period, including direct and indirect costs. The following outcomes were assessed: inflammatory neuropathy cause and treatment disability scale, Mini-Mental State Examination, Beck Depression Inventory, Charlson comorbidity index, EuroQol-5D, World Health Organization quality of life instrument, and socioeconomic status. Univariate and multivariate analyses were applied to identify cost-driving factors.Results: Total quarterly costs were €11,333. Direct costs contributed to 83% of total costs (€9,423), whereas indirect costs accounted for 17% (€1,910) of total costs. The cost of intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) was the main determinant of total costs (67%). Reduced health-related quality of life and depressive symptoms were identified as independent predictors of higher total costs.Discussion: CIDP is associated with high societal costs, mainly resulting from the cost of IVIg treatment. Muscle Nerve 58: 681-687, 2018. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: The objective of the present analysis was to assess the effectiveness of national and international guidelines in the treatment of patients with allergic rhinitis as well as rhinitis and asthma. Subject and methods: The data of 121,593 patients collected during nine prospective observational studies carried out between 1998 and 2005 were examined using an individual patient data meta-analysis method. Results: A total of 76,981 patient data were included in the final analysis. In all, 14.8% of patients with allergic rhinitis were treated according to the recommendations. The effectiveness results show no statistical differences between the treatment suggested in the guideline and other therapies, in terms of reducing the nasal symptom score and improving the global health state. Patients receiving a non-conform therapeutic regime reported a mean improvement in nasal symptoms of 4.58 points of a possible 9. Applying the guidelines strictly, by supplementing additional treatment modalities according to the severity of the symptoms of rhinitis, did not result in any additional improvement (3.26 points out of 9). Conclusion: The authors' findings conflict with the results of previous studies that demonstrated the superiority of following guideline recommendations over an open choice of therapy. The analysis of confounding factors demonstrated that patient compliance is one of the important determinants for effective and efficient guideline implementation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To assess the costs and cost-effectiveness of voriconazole in comparison to conventional amphotericin B (CAB) for the treatment of invasive aspergillosis in Germany. Methods: The cost-effectiveness of voriconazole in comparison to CAB was evaluated with a lifetime Markov model, focusing on the long-term survival of patients treated for invasive aspergillosis. Long-term survival was extrapolated from survival after 12 weeks of treatment, obtained from a randomized aspergillosis study. Information on medical resource consumption and treatment pathways were obtained from this study and an expert committee. With probabilistic analysis the cost-effectiveness of voriconazole compared with amphotericin B was analyzed and expressed in incremental costs per life-weeks gained. The evaluation was performed from a limited societal perspective (both inpatient and outpatient costs) and hospital perspective (only inpatient costs). Results: Average survival of patients treated with voriconazole was 174.4 life-weeks (95% confidence interval [CI] 159.4–191.3), compared with 119.4 life-weeks (95% CI 106.4–132.3) for amphotericin B. With voriconazole, the mean total costs per patient were &U20AC;30,026 (95% CI &U20AC;23,118–37,947) compared with &U20AC;26,669 for amphotericin B (95% CI &U20AC;21,259–34,263) from the limited societal perspective. The corresponding incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was &U20AC;62 per life-week gained (i.e., &U20AC;3224 per life-year gained). Hospital costs were approximately 90% of the mean total costs. Conclusions: In the treatment of invasive aspergillosis, voriconazole is cost-effective in comparison to amphotericin B. Hospital costs are comparable for both treatments and are expected to be reimbursed based on the German diagnosis-related groups (DRG) system 2005. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Monoclonal antibodies targeting the cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 (CTLA4) (e.g., ipilimumab [IPI]) and the programmed cell death-1 (PD1) receptor (e.g., nivolumab [NIVO]) represent significant breakthroughs in the treatment of advanced melanoma. A combination of the 2 agents has demonstrated efficacy and survival benefits over NIVO or IPI monotherapy in treating advanced melanoma. We compared melanoma-specific costs following treatment with NIVO + IPI, NIVO monotherapy, or IPI monotherapy from the UK and German perspectives to ascertain whether these clinical benefits resulted in a cost advantage. Methods: Patient-level resource utilization data for the three treatment cohorts were obtained from the CheckMate 067 trial (NCT01844505). All melanoma-specific resources, including drugs (index, concomitant and subsequent melanoma medications), office visits, emergency room visits, hospitalizations, lab tests, procedures and surgeries, utilized over a 48-month evaluation period after start of index treatment were included. Unit costs specific to each geography were applied from external sources. Mean costs per surviving patients were calculated for each successive 30-day period from treatment start and aggregated over the evaluation period. Results: The total per-patient costs incurred by advanced melanoma patients over the 48-month period following treatment initiation with NIVO + IPI were 9% lower than NIVO monotherapy (£226k vs £248k) and 3% lower compared to IPI monotherapy (£226k vs. £233k) in the UK. In Germany, the total costs incurred by NIVO + IPI cohort were 5% lower than NIVO monotherapy (€258k vs €271k) and 4% lower compared to IPI monotherapy (€258k vs. €268k). Drug costs accounted for > 85% of total costs. Non-drug costs were slightly higher for NIVO + IPI and IPI monotherapy because of higher hospitalization rates. Costs incurred on subsequent drugs post progression were about 45% and 65% lower in NIVO + IPI cohort compared with NIVO and IPI monotherapy cohorts respectively. Conclusions: The total costs incurred by a patient over a 48-month period following treatment initiation with NIVO + IPI are lower when compared with patients initiating monotherapies; further, the cost advantage is seen to be increasing over time. The clinical benefits offered by the regimen are thus supplemented by a cost advantage, as patients receiving either monotherapy treatment experience faster progression and, consequently, higher subsequent treatment costs. (Note: The cost results reported here are specific to the UK, and Germany, and may not be generalizable to other geographies). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]