Search

Purpose Molecular targeted therapies (MTTs) cause skin disorders in cancer patients, and moisturizers are useful treatments; however, their actual use and costs are unknown. Our purpose was to examine the use and costs of moisturizers prescribed for xerosis (asteatosis) in cancer patients treated with MTTs. Methods We used data from a Japanese hospital-based claims database. The index date was the first date of MTT prescription from October 2011 to April 2018 (selection period), and the follow-up period was 1 year from the index date. Patients treated with MTTs during the selection period and who were not prescribed moisturizers in the 6 months before the index date were included as the study cohort. Timing, duration, amount, and costs of the prescribed moisturizers and total medical costs were analyzed.Results Among the 78,190 patients in the study cohort, 27,906 patients (35.7%) were prescribed moisturizers during follow-up. Moisturizer prescription timing, duration, and volume were inconsistent. The average annual total medical costs for treating patients with MTT who were prescribed moisturizers was 6.165 million yen per patient, and the moisturizer costs were 6033 yen. The number of patients who used moisturizers showed an increasing trend.Conclusion No consistent patterns were observed for the timing or duration of moisturizer use, which suggests various developmental patterns of skin disorders. Furthermore, medical costs for moisturizers accounted for only a small proportion of the total medical costs required for cancer treatment.

Background: Despite the guidelines for Economic and Public Health Assessment Committee (CEESP) submission having been available for nearly six years, the dossiers submitted continue to deviate from them, potentially impacting product prices. Objective: to review the reports published by CEESP, analyse deviations from the guidelines, and discuss their implications for the pricing and reimbursement process. Study design: CEESP reports published until January 2017 were reviewed, and deviations from the guidelines were extracted. The frequency of deviations was described by type of methodological concern (minor, important or major). Results: In 19 reports, we identified 243 methodological concerns, most often concerning modelling, measurement and valuation of health states and results presentation and sensitivity analyses; nearly 63% were minor, 33% were important and 4.5% were major. All reports included minor methodological concerns, and 17 (89%) included at least one important and/or major methodological concern. Global major methodological concerns completely invalidated the analysis in seven dossiers (37%). Conclusion: The CEESP submission dossiers fail to adhere to the guidelines, potentially invalidating the health economics analysis and resulting in pricing negotiations. As these negotiations tend to be unfavourable for the manufacturer, the industry should strive to improve the quality of the analyses submitted to CEESP.

Objective To model the cost-effectiveness impact of routine use of an antimicrobial chlorhexidine gluconate-containing securement dressing compared to non-antimicrobial transparent dressings for the protection of central vascular lines in intensive care unit patients. Design This study uses a novel health economic model to estimate the cost-effectiveness of using the chlorhexidine gluconate dressing versus transparent dressings in a French intensive care unit scenario. The 30-day time non-homogeneous markovian model comprises eight health states. The probabilities of events derive from a multicentre (12 French intensive care units) randomized controlled trial. 1,000 Monte Carlo simulations of 1,000 patients per dressing strategy are used for probabilistic sensitivity analysis and 95% confidence intervals calculations. The outcome is the number of catheter-related bloodstream infections avoided. Costs of intensive care unit stay are based on a recent French multicentre study and the cost-effectiveness criterion is the cost per catheter-related bloodstream infections avoided. The incremental net monetary benefit per patient is also estimated. Patients 1000 patients per group simulated based on the source randomized controlled trial involving 1,879 adults expected to require intravascular catheterization for 48 hours. Intervention Chlorhexidine Gluconate-containing securement dressing compared to non-antimicrobial transparent dressings. Results The chlorhexidine gluconate dressing prevents 11.8 infections /1,000 patients (95% confidence interval: [3.85; 19.64]) with a number needed to treat of 85 patients. The mean cost difference per patient of €141 is not statistically significant (95% confidence interval: [€-975; €1,258]). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio is of €12,046 per catheter-related bloodstream infection prevented, and the incremental net monetary benefit per patient is of €344.88. Conclusions According to the base case scenario, the chlorhexidine gluconate dressing is more cost-effective than the reference dressing. Trial Registration This model is based on the data from the RCT registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01189682).