Search

Background: This study aimed at estimating the efficiency of palivizumab in the prevention of Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV) infection and its sequelae in preterm infants (32day 1-35day 0weeks of gestational age -wGA-) in Spain.Methods: A decision-tree model was developed to compare health benefits (Quality Adjusted Life Years-QALYs) and costs of palivizumab versus a non-prophylaxis strategy over 6 years. A hypothetical cohort of 1,000 preterm infants, 32day 1-35day 0 wGA (4.356 kg average weight) at the beginning of the prophylaxis (15 mg/kg of palivizumab; 3.88 average number of injections per RSV season) was analysed. The model considered the most recent evidence from Spanish observational and epidemiological studies on RSV infection: the FLIP II study provided hospital admission and Intensive Care Unit (ICU) admission rates; in-hospital mortality rate was drawn from an epidemiological study from 2004 to 2012; recurrent wheezing rates associated to RSV infection from SPRING study were adjusted by the evidence on the palivizumab effect from clinical trials. Quality of life baseline value, number of hospitalized infants and the presence of recurrent wheezing over time were granted to estimate QALYs. National Health Service and societal perspective (included also recurrent wheezing indirect cost) were analysed. Total costs (€, 2016) included pharmaceutical and administration costs, hospitalization costs and recurrent wheezing management annual costs. A discount rate of 3.0% was applied annually for both costs and health outcomes.Results: Over 6 years, the base case analysis showed that palivizumab was associated to an increase of 0.0731 QALYs compared to non-prophylaxis. Total costs were estimated in €2,110.71 (palivizumab) and €671.68 (non-prophylaxis) from the National Health System (NHS) perspective, resulting in an incremental cost utility ratio (ICUR) of €19,697.69/QALYs gained (prophylaxis vs non-prophylaxis). Results derived from the risk-factors population subgroups analysed were in line with the total population results. From the societal perspective, the incremental cost associated to palivizumab decreased to an €1,253.14 (ICUR = €17,153.16€/QALYs gained for palivizumab vs non-prophylaxis). One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the model.Conclusions: The prophylaxis with palivizumab is efficient for preventing from RSV infections in preterm infants 32day 1-35day 0 wGA in Spain. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction and Objectives: The aim of this analysis was to evaluate the burden and cost of complications due to poor anticoagulation control in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) treated with vitamin K antagonists (VKA) in Spain., Methods: An analytical model was used to estimate annual differences in ischemic stroke, major bleeding, deaths, costs, and potential years of life lost between patients with poor anticoagulation control (time in therapeutic range <65%) and adequate control (time in therapeutic range ≥ 65%) with a 1-year time horizon. Information on the target population (patients ≥ 65 years), event rates, and costs were obtained from national sources. Direct costs in euros (2018) were included from the perspective of the national health system (NHS) and direct and indirect costs from the societal perspective. A sensitivity analysis was performed with post-hoc data from the SPORTIF III/V trials., Results: We analyzed a hypothetical cohort of 594 855 patients, 48.3% with poor anticoagulation control, with an increase of 2321 ischemic strokes, 2236 major bleeding events and 14 463 deaths, and an annual incremental cost between €29 578 306 from the NHS perspective and €75 737 451 from the societal perspective. The annual impact of mortality was 170 502 potential years of life lost. The results of the sensitivity analysis showed that the annual cost would reach €97 787 873 from the societal perspective., Conclusions: Poor anticoagulation control with AVK has a strong impact on loss of health and on increased spending for the NHS., (Copyright © 2020 Sociedad Española de Cardiología. Published by Elsevier España, S.L.U. All rights reserved.)