Search

Background: Oseltamivir is usually not often prescribed (or reimbursed) for non-high-risk patients consulting for influenza-like-illness (ILI) in primary care in Europe. We aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of adding oseltamivir to usual primary care in adults/adolescents (13 years +) and children with ILI during seasonal influenza epidemics, using data collected in an open-label, multi-season, randomised controlled trial of oseltamivir in 15 European countries. Methods: Direct and indirect cost estimates were based on patient reported resource use and official country-specific unit costs. Health-Related Quality of Life was assessed by EQ-5D questionnaires. Costs and quality adjusted life-years (QALY) were bootstrapped (N = 10,000) to estimate incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER), from both the healthcare payers' and the societal perspectives, with uncertainty expressed through probabilistic sensitivity analysis and expected value for perfect information (EVPI) analysis. Additionally, scenario (self-reported spending), comorbidities subgroup and country-specific analyses were performed. Results: The healthcare payers' expected ICERs of oseltamivir were €22,459 per QALY gained in adults/adolescents and €13,001 in children. From the societal perspective, oseltamivir was cost-saving in adults/adolescents, but the ICER is €8,344 in children. Large uncertainties were observed in subgroups with comorbidities, especially for children. The expected ICERs and extent of decision uncertainty varied between countries (EVPI ranged €1–€35 per patient). Conclusion: Adding oseltamivir to primary usual care in Europe is likely to be cost-effective for treating adults/adolescents and children with ILI from the healthcare payers' perspective (if willingness-to-pay per QALY gained > €22,459) and cost-saving in adults/adolescents from a societal perspective. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Objective: Influenza-like illness (ILI) leads to a substantial disease burden every winter in Europe; however, oseltamivir is not frequently prescribed to ILI patients in the primary-care setting. An open-label, multi-country, multi-season, randomised controlled trial investigated the effectiveness of oseltamivir for treating ILI in 15 European countries. We aimed to evaluate whether patients presenting with ILI in primary care and being managed with the addition of oseltamivir to usual care had lower average direct and indirect costs compared to patients with usual care alone. Methods: Resource use data were extracted from participants' daily diaries. Itemised country-specific unit costs were collected through official tariffs, pharmacies or literature. Costs were converted to 2018 values. The null hypothesis was tested based on one-sided credible intervals (CrIs) obtained by bootstrapping. Base-case analysis estimated direct cost and productivity losses using itemised costed resource use and the human capital approach. Scenario analyses with self-reported spending rather than itemised costing were also performed. Results: Patients receiving oseltamivir (N = 1306) reported fewer healthcare visits, medication uses, hospital attendances and paid-work hours lost than the other patients (N = 1298). Excluding the oseltamivir cost, the average direct costs were lower in patients treated with oseltamivir from all perspectives, but these differences were not statistically significant (perspective of patient: €17 [0–95% Crl: 16–19] vs. €24 [5–100% Crl: 18–29]; healthcare provider: €37 [28–67] vs. €44 [25–55]; healthcare payers: €54 [45–85] vs. €68 [45–81]; and society: €423 [399–478] vs. €451 [390–478]). Scenario and age-group analyses confirmed these findings, but with some between-country differences. Conclusion: The average direct and indirect costs were consistently lower in patients treated with oseltamivir than in patients without from four perspectives (excluding the oseltamivir cost). However, these differences were not statistically significant. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Laura Medina-Perucha,1 Pablo Gálvez-Hernández,2,3 Ana García-Sangenís,1,4 Ana Moragas,5 Josep María Cots,6 Anna Lanau-Roig,6 Alícia Borrás,2,7 Isabel Amo,2 Nieves Barragán,8 Ramon Monfá,1,4 Carl Llor,1,9 Anna Berenguera1,4,10 1Fundació Institut Universitari per a la recerca a l’Atenció Primària de Salut Jordi Gol i Gurina (IDIAPJGol), Barcelona, Spain; 2Institut Universitari de Pacients (Patients’ University Institut), Universitat Internacional de Catalunya, Barcelona, Spain; 3University of Toronto, IHPME-BFON Collaborative PhD Specialization Program in Health Services and Policy Research, Ontario, Canada; 4Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Bellaterra (Cerdanyola del Vallès), Spain; 5Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Jaume I Health Centre, Institut Català de la Salut, Tarragona, Spain; 6La Marina Health Centre, Institut Català de la Salut, Associació d’Infermeria Familiar i Comunitària de Catalunya, Barcelona, Spain; 7Escola Universitària d’Infermeria, Escoles Universitàries Gimbernat, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Sant Cugat del Vallès, Spain; 8Societat Catalana de Medicina Familiar i Comunitària (Camfic), Grupo Programa Comunicación y Salud semFYC. CAP Vallcarca Health Centre, Barcelona, Spain; 9Via Roma Health Centre, Institut Català de la Salut, Barcelona, Spain; 10Departament d’Infermeria, Universitat de Girona, Girona, SpainCorrespondence: Laura Medina-Perucha Gran via de les Corts Catalanes, 587, Attic, Barcelona, 08007, SpainTel +34 93 482 4253 ext. 4761Email lmedina@idiapjgol.infoPurpose: Co-design processes with patients allow developing health education materials, that are adapted to the population’s knowledge and use of language, to reduce inappropriate antibiotic use.Patients and Methods: This study presents a co-design process of educational material with patients (over 18 years old) with a previous diagnosis of acute lower respiratory tract infection. The co-design was framed within a qualitative study (Phase I, interviews; Phase II, focus group) conducted in Barcelona between April and September 2019.Results: Twenty-nine semi-structured interviews were conducted. Six people participated in the focus group. Based on participants’ narratives, educational materials can be useful to support healthcare consultations. Materials should be designed to be accessible in terms of the content and language used.Conclusion: The co-design of educational materials is essential for health promotion. This study presents an example of how materials can be co-developed with patients. The material elaborated in this study is being used for the ISAAC-CAT project and may be useful for future research, practice in health services and health policy.Keywords: health education, co-design, acute respiratory infections, antimicrobial resistance, primary healthcare