Search

Objective To quantify differences in hospital-associated costs, and accompanying travel costs and productivity losses, before and after withdrawing TNF-α inhibitors (TNFi) in JIA patients. Methods This was a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data from electronic medical records of paediatric JIA patients treated with TNFi, which were immediately discontinued, spaced (increased treatment interval) or tapered (reduced subsequent doses). Costs of hospital-associated resource use (consultations, medication, radiology procedures, laboratory testing, procedures under general anaesthesia, hospitalization) and associated travel costs and productivity losses were quantified during clinically inactive disease until TNFi withdrawal (pre-withdrawal period) and compared with costs during the first and second year after withdrawal initiation (first and second year post-withdrawal). Results Fifty-six patients were included of whom 26 immediately discontinued TNFi, 30 spaced and zero tapered. Mean annual costs were €9165/patient on active treatment (pre-withdrawal) and decreased significantly to €5063/patient (−44.8%) and €6569/patient (−28.3%) in the first and second year post-withdrawal, respectively (P  < 0.05). Of these total annual costs, travel costs plus productivity losses were €834/patient, €1180/patient, and €1320/patient in the three periods respectively. Medication comprised 80.7%, 61.5% and 72.4% of total annual costs in the pre-withdrawal, first and second year post-withdrawal period, respectively. Conclusion In the first two years after initiating withdrawal, the total annual costs were decreased compared with the pre-withdrawal period. However, cost reductions were lower in the second year compared with the first year post-withdrawal, primarily due to restarting or intensifying biologics. To support biologic withdrawal decisions, future research should assess the full long-term societal cost impacts, and include all biologics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective To investigate medication prescription patterns among children with JIA, including duration, sequence and reasons for medication discontinuation. Methods This study is a single-centre, retrospective analysis of prospective data from the electronic medical records of JIA patients receiving systemic therapy aged 0–18 years between 1 April 2011 and 31 March 2019. Patient characteristics (age, gender, JIA subtype) and medication prescriptions were extracted and analysed using descriptive statistics, Sankey diagrams and Kaplan–Meier survival methods. Results Over a median of 4.2 years follow-up, the 20 different medicines analysed were prescribed as monotherapy (n  = 15) or combination therapy (n  = 48 unique combinations) among 236 patients. In non-systemic JIA, synthetic DMARDs were prescribed to almost all patients (99.5%), and always included MTX. In contrast, 43.9% of non-systemic JIA patients received a biologic DMARD (mostly adalimumab or etanercept), ranging from 30.9% for oligoarticular persistent ANA-positive JIA, to 90.9% for polyarticular RF-positive JIA. Among systemic JIA, 91.7% received a biologic DMARD (always including anakinra). When analysing medication prescriptions according to their class, 32.6% involved combination therapy. In 56.8% of patients, subsequent treatment lines were initiated after unsuccessful first-line treatment, resulting in 68 unique sequences. Remission was the most common reason for DMARD discontinuation (44.7%), followed by adverse events (28.9%) and ineffectiveness (22.1%). Conclusion This paper reveals the complexity of pharmacological treatment in JIA, as indicated by: the variety of mono- and combination therapies prescribed, substantial variation in medication prescriptions between subtypes, most patients receiving two or more treatment lines, and the large number of unique treatment sequences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: This study aims to quantify medication costs in juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA), based on subtype. Research design and methods: This study is a single-center, retrospective analysis of prospective data from electronic medical records of JIA patients, aged 0–18 years between 1 April 2011 and 31 March 2019. Patient characteristics (age, gender, subtype) and medication use were extracted. Medication use and costs were reported as: 1) mean total annual costs; 2) between-patient heterogeneity in these costs; 3) duration of medication use; and, 4) costs over the treatment course. Results: The analysis included 691 patients. Mean total medication costs were €2,103/patient/year, including €1,930/patient/year (91.8%) spent on biologicals. Costs varied considerably between subtypes, with polyarticular rheumatoid-factor positive and systemic JIA patients having the highest mean costs (€5,020/patient/year and €4,790/patient/year, respectively). Mean annual medication costs over the patient's treatment course ranged from <€1,000/year (71.1% of patients) to >€11,000/year (2.5% of patients). Etanercept and adalimumab were the most commonly used biologicals. Cost fluctuations over the treatment course were primarily attributable to biological use. Conclusions: Polyarticular rheumatoid-factor positive and systemic JIA patients had the highest mean total annual medication costs, primarily attributable to biologicals. Costs varied considerably between subtypes, individuals, and over the treatment course. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) is a chronic rheumatic disease, whose multifaceted care path can lead to significant expenditure for the healthcare system. We aim to assess the real-world healthcare resource use (HCRU) and associated cost for children with JIA in a single center in Canada. Methods: A single-center consecutive cohort of newly diagnosed patients with JIA attending the pediatric rheumatology clinic from 2011 to 2019 was identified using an administrative data algorithm and electronic medical charts. HCRU was estimated from six administrative health databases that included hospital admissions, emergency, outpatient care, practitioners' visits, medication, and laboratory and imaging tests. Costs were assigned using appropriate sources. We reported the yearly overall and JIA-associated HCRU and costs 5 years prior to and 6 years after the first visit to the pediatric rheumatologist. The Zhao and Tian estimator was used to calculate cumulative mean costs over a 6-year timeframe. Results were stratified by disease subtype. Results: A total of 389 patients were identified. The yearly total overall mean costs per patient ranged between $804 and $4460 during the 5 years prior to the first visit to the pediatric rheumatologist and $8529 and $10,651 for the 6 years after. Medication cost, driven by use of biologic therapies, and outpatient visits were the greatest contributor to the total cost. The overall cumulative mean cost for 6 years of care was $48,649 per patient, while the JIA-associated cumulative mean cost was $26,820 per patient. During the first year of rheumatology care, systemic onset JIA had the highest cumulative mean overall cost, while oligoarticular JIA had the lowest cumulative mean cost. Conclusion: The care pathway for children with JIA can be expensive, and complex—and varies by JIA subtype. Although the yearly total mean cost per patient was constant, the distribution of costs changes over time with the introduction of biologic therapies later in the care pathway. This study provides a better understanding of the JIA costs profile and can help inform future economic studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Establishing the underlying cause of anaemia in general practice is a diagnostic challenge. Currently, general practitioners individually determine which laboratory tests to request (routine work-up) in order to diagnose the underlying cause. However, an extensive work-up (consisting of 14 tests) increases the proportion of patients correctly diagnosed. This study investigates the cost-effectiveness of this extensive work-up. Methods A decision-analytic model was developed, incorporating all societal costs from the moment a patient presents to a general practitioner with symptoms suggestive of anaemia (aged ≥ 50 years), until the patient was (correctly) diagnosed and treated in primary care, or referred to (and diagnosed in) secondary care. Model inputs were derived from an online survey among general practitioners, expert estimates and published data. The primary outcome measure was expressed as incremental cost per additional patient diagnosed with the correct underlying cause of anaemia in either work-up. Results The probability of general practitioners diagnosing the correct underlying cause increased from 49.6% (95% CI: 44.8% to 54.5%) in the routine work-up to 56.0% (95% CI: 51.2% to 60.8%) in the extensive work-up (i.e. +6.4% [95% CI: -0.6% to 13.1%]). Costs are expected to increase slightly from €842/patient (95% CI: €704 to €994) to €845/patient (95% CI: €711 to €994), i.e. +€3/patient (95% CI: €-35 to €40) in the extensive work-up, indicating incremental costs of €43 per additional patient correctly diagnosed. Conclusions The extensive laboratory work-up is more effective for diagnosing the underlying cause of anaemia by general practitioners, at a minimal increase in costs. As accompanying benefits in terms of quality of life and reduced productivity losses could not be captured in this analysis, the extensive work-up is likely cost-effective. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]