Search

Objectives: This study aimed to provide a long-term cost comparison of patients using additional homeopathic treatment (homeopathy group) with patients using usual care (control group) over an observation period of 33 months. Methods: Health claims data from a large statutory health insurance company were analysed from both the societal perspective (primary outcome) and from the statutory health insurance perspective (secondary outcome). To compare costs between patient groups, homeopathy and control patients were matched in a 1:1 ratio using propensity scores. Predictor variables for the propensity scores included health care costs and both medical and demographic variables. Health care costs were analysed using an analysis of covariance, adjusted for baseline costs, between groups both across diagnoses and for specific diagnoses over a period of 33 months. Specific diagnoses included depression, migraine, allergic rhinitis, asthma, atopic dermatitis, and headache. Results: Data from 21,939 patients in the homeopathy group (67.4% females) and 21,861 patients in the control group (67.2% females) were analysed. Health care costs over the 33 months were 12,414 EUR [95% CI 12,022–12,805] in the homeopathy group and 10,428 EUR [95% CI 10,036–10,820] in the control group (p<0.0001). The largest cost differences were attributed to productivity losses (homeopathy: EUR 6,289 [6,118–6,460]; control: EUR 5,498 [5,326–5,670], p<0.0001) and outpatient costs (homeopathy: EUR 1,794 [1,770–1,818]; control: EUR 1,438 [1,414–1,462], p<0.0001). Although the costs of the two groups converged over time, cost differences remained over the full 33 months. For all diagnoses, homeopathy patients generated higher costs than control patients. Conclusion: The analysis showed that even when following-up over 33 months, there were still cost differences between groups, with higher costs in the homeopathy group. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background The successful treatment of atopic eczema ( AE) should result in the improvement of both physical symptoms and patient′s quality of life (QoL). This study was conducted using a sample of dermatologists throughout Germany. This is due to dermatologists being the main health care providers of AE. Objectives Obtaining reliable data on quality of care of AE from both the patient's and the physician's perspective. Methods This cross-sectional study assessed: the individual clinical history; dermatology-specific QoL ( DLQI); state of health ( EQ-5d- VAS); treatments; burden caused by disease and treatment; patient-defined treatment benefit ( PBI). Results Data from 1678 adult patients (60.5% female, mean age: 38.4 ± 15.9) were analysed. The most frequently used treatments during the last five years were emollients (90.4%) and topical corticosteroids (85.5%). In this study, 75.8% of the patients felt only moderately or not at all impaired by their treatment. The mean DLQI (0 = minimum-30 = maximum QoL impairment) was 8.5 ± 6.5. The EQ-5d- VAS (100 = best possible) was 63.6 ± 22.0 on average. 26.6% reported suffering 'often' or 'every night' from sleeplessness due to severe itching. Mean PBI was 2.4 ± 1.1 (4 = maximum benefit). Conclusions This study provides first data on the health care of adults with AE in Germany at a national level and reveals the need for a more effective care. Whereas most patients consider their treatment-related burden as low, the daily burden of the disease seems to be high: one third reports sleeplessness due to itching which indicates insufficient therapeutic regimes in these cases. A better implementation of the German national guideline for AE and a systematic analysis of the difficulties causing its limited effects is needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]