Search

Objective: The aim of this study was to quantify costs of hospital-associated care for juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA), provide insights in patient-level variation in costs, and investigate costs over time from the moment of JIA diagnosis. Results were reported for all JIA patients in general and by subtype. Methods: This study was a single-center, retrospective analysis of prospective data from electronic medical records of children with JIA, ages 0–18 years, between April 1, 2011 and March 31, 2019. Patient characteristics (age, sex, JIA subtype) and hospital-based resource use (consultations, medication, radiology procedures, laboratory testing, surgeries, emergency department [ED] visits, hospital stays) were extracted and analyzed. Unit prices were obtained from Dutch reimbursement lists and pharmaceutical and hospital list prices. Results: The analysis included 691 patients. The mean total cost of hospital care was €3,784/patient/year, of which €2,103 (55.6%) was attributable to medication. Other costs involved pediatric rheumatologist visits (€633/patient/year [16.7%]), hospital stays (€439/patient/year [11.6%]), other within-hospital specialist visits (€324/patient/year [8.6%]), radiology procedures (€119/patient/year [3.1%]), laboratory tests (€114/patient/year [3.0%]), surgeries (€46/patient/year [1.2%]), and ED visits (€6/patient/year [0.2%]). Mean annual total costs varied between JIA subtypes and between individuals and were the highest for systemic JIA (€7,772/patient/year). Over the treatment course, costs were the highest in the first month after JIA diagnosis. Conclusion: Hospital care costs of JIA vary substantially between individuals, between subtypes, and over the treatment course. The highest annual costs were for systemic JIA, primarily attributable to medication (i.e., biologics). Costs of other hospital-associated care were comparable regardless of subtype.

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.

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. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40744-021-00331-x.

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 €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.

Objectives: The objectives of this systematic review were to identify health state utility values (HSUV) of children and adults with juvenile idiopathic arthritis in the literature and to assess whether HSUV were appropriately reported and could be used to inform parameter inputs for a model-based cost-utility analysis to inform decision making. Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, EconLit and CINAHL databases were searched in July 2019. Inclusion criteria were studies using preference-based instruments, targeting children or adults with juvenile idiopathic arthritis, and in the English language. The quality of studies was assessed using a modified checklist that included relevant sources of bias and assessment of quality of HSUV valuation and measurement. A descriptive analysis was conducted, including assessment on reporting of population characteristics and stratification of HSUV by potential health states or population subgroup. Results: From 620 identified articles, ten reported HSUV. Seven studies reported HSUV of children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis, and three of adults with a history of juvenile idiopathic arthritis. Population disease activity status and drug treatment were reported in less than half of the studies. Six (out of ten) studies stratified HSUV results for at least one of the potential health state categories, but they represent very specific situations or interventions (e.g. patients receiving different types of physiotherapy or treated with etanercept over time). Conclusions: We have identified critical gaps in the literature reporting HSUV in patients with juvenile idiopathic arthritis including a lack of HSUV measures for distinct health states, particularly in adults with a history of juvenile idiopathic arthritis. The current reported HSUV data in juvenile idiopathic arthritis are insufficient for a full cost-utility analysis with a short or lifetime horizon.

Objectives:The objective of this article is to describe the unique challenges and present potential solutions and approaches for economic evaluations of precision medicine (PM) interventions using simulation modeling methods. Methods:Given the large and growing number of PM interventions and applications, methods are needed for economic evaluation of PM that can handle the complexity of cascading decisions and patient-specific heterogeneity reflected in the myriad testing and treatment pathways. Traditional approaches (eg, Markov models) have limitations, and other modeling techniques may be required to overcome these challenges. Dynamic simulation models, such as discrete event simulation and agent-based models, are used to design and develop mathematical representations of complex systems and intervention scenarios to evaluate the consequence of interventions over time from a systems perspective. Results:Some of the methodological challenges of modeling PM can be addressed using dynamic simulation models. For example, issues regarding companion diagnostics, combining and sequencing of tests, and diagnostic performance of tests can be addressed by capturing patient-specific pathways in the context of care delivery. Issues regarding patient heterogeneity can be addressed by using patient-level simulation models. Conclusion:The economic evaluation of PM interventions poses unique methodological challenges that might require new solutions. Simulation models are well suited for economic evaluation in PM because they enable patient-level analyses and can capture the dynamics of interventions in complex systems specific to the context of healthcare service delivery.

Introduction This systematic review has the purpose to characterize the accuracy of chromogenic in situ hybridization (CISH) and silver in situ hybridization (SISH), in comparison to fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) in the identification of human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 (HER2) overexpression and to inform decisions about test selection. Materials and methods We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE databases using these eligibility criteria: studies evaluating invasive breast cancer samples which examined agreement between CISH or SISH, and FISH, and reported sensitivity, specificity, or concordance. We performed a bivariate meta-analysis of sensitivity and specificity using a generalized linear mixed model. We used likelihood ratio tests from meta-regression to compare accuracy between HER2 tests. Results The search identified 4475 articles, of which 32 were included. The summary estimates for sensitivity and specificity were 0.91 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.85-0.95], and 0.97 (95% CI, 0.93-0.99) for SISH; 0.97 (95% CI, 0.83-1.00) and 0.99 (95% CI, 0.96-1.00) for single-probe CISH; and, 0.98 (95% CI, 0.92-0.99) and 0.98 (95% CI, 0.91-0.99) for dual-probe CISH. Significantly higher sensitivity was reported for dual-CISH than SISH (χ: 5.36; P=0.02) when compared with the reference test FISH. Conclusions The agreement between new bright field tests (SISH and CISH) and FISH is high (≥92%). Indirect comparison of HER2 tests indicated that overall CISH performance exceeds that of SISH. The pooled estimates from this meta-analysis summarize the current published literature and, in addition to other factors such as costs differentials, can help inform future HER2 test selection decisions.

Introduction Trastuzumab-related cardiotoxicity has been a major concern in clinical practice, since observational studies have shown higher incidences than that reported in clinical trials. We aim to measure the incidence of trastuzumab-related cardiotoxicity in patients with early and metastatic breast cancer in the south of Brazil. Methods Multicenter prospective observational study, which included 109 patients with early or metastatic HER-2+ breast cancer undergoing any trastuzumab-based regimen. Cardiac events were measured by transthoracic echocardiography assessments and by signs and symptoms of heart failure. Results Trastuzumab-related cardiotoxicity was observed in 58 patients (53.2%). Emergency and hospitalization admissions were necessary in seven and three patients, respectively, due to symptoms of heart failure. One patient died in consequence of trastuzumab-related cardiotoxicity. In total, trastuzumab was discontinued in 31.2% of patients, of which almost a third could not return to treatment. In this study, no risk factors were significantly associated with the development of cardiotoxicity. Discussion The incidence of TRC and trastuzumab's early discontinuation observed was significantly higher in comparison with other studies. These findings endorse the fact that trastuzumab-related cardiotoxicity is a relevant adverse reaction, and therefore, cardiac dysfunction's monitoring must be highlighted in order to allow a safe use of trastuzumab in this population.

Background Introduction of the monoclonal antibody rituximab to chemotherapy regimens has substantially improved disease-free and overall survival in patients with non-Hodgkin lymphomas (NHL). The short-term safety of this drug has been widely reported, but there are few data on long-term safety, which suggests that these patients require prolonged follow-up. Aim of the review To review the literature on follow-up models, with a focus on the safety of rituximab therapy for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma and follicular lymphoma. Method The Cochrane Library, Embassy, Lilacs, Medline, and Scirus databases were searched for systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials. Furthermore, textbooks and journals on pharmaceutical care and institutional websites were searched for patient management recommendations. The outcomes were follow-up models and grade 3, 4, and 5 adverse reactions. Results Five systematic reviews and eight clinical trials or updates describing patient follow-up or reporting adverse reactions were identified. Only one systematic review and seven clinical trials reported follow-up routines for patients receiving rituximab, including information on staging, frequency of reassessment, and laboratory tests, as well as pre-infusion care and management of acute or delayed adverse reactions. Five systematic reviews and four clinical trials reported data on statistically significant adverse reactions (fever, leukopenia, infection). Four guidelines or institutional protocols for treatment and follow-up were identified, as well as seven studies describing experiences in the implementation of pharmaceutical care for oncology patients, but none were specifically focused on follow-up of patients receiving rituximab for NHL. Conclusion Although some systematic reviews and clinical trials contain guidance on follow-up of patients receiving rituximab for NHL, there are no validated strategies for systematic follow-up of these patients with a focus on safety. As there are few data on long-term safety profile of these novel treatments, monitoring strategies should be developed and implemented to ensure safe and optimized use of drugs recently added to the therapeutic arsenal of clinical oncology.

The advent of rituximab has significantly improved the clinical outcomes of patients with diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL). Although rituximab is considered safe and effective, data on its long-term use are limited, which suggests that patients should undergo systematic, long-term follow-up aiming to identify delayed or yet undescribed adverse reactions and optimize treatment effectiveness. This study presents an overview of systematic reviews of strategies for follow-up of DLBCL patients receiving rituximab and documents the current state of knowledge on efficacy and safety in this population. A highly sensitive strategy was used to identify systematic reviews of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in the Cochrane Library, Embase, Lilacs, MEDLINE, and Scirus databases. A handsearch of medical and government agency websites was also conducted. Seven studies were included, among them there were RCTs of patients who used CHOP/CHOP-like chemotherapy plus rituximab for three to eight cycles every 14 to 21 days as induction therapy, whereas some studies used maintenance therapy for 3 to 24 months. Only one study described a follow-up model for management of adverse drug reactions. The benefits of rituximab for induction therapy of DLBCL were demonstrated, although there is no evidence of significant improvement in the overall survival of high-risk patients or those with HIV-related lymphoma. Rituximab therapy was associated with increased rates of fever, infection, and grade 3/4 hematological toxicity, as well as higher infection-related mortality in HIV-positive patients. Although one study addressed the management of adverse reactions to rituximab, our search did not yield any publications on systematic follow-up strategies for these patients. This finding suggests that such instruments should be developed and validated to optimize the effectiveness and long-term safety of novel therapies.