Efficacy and cost comparison of congenital dacryocystocele treatment options

Background: Dupuytren’s disease results in contracted cords in the hand that lead to deformity and disability. Current treatment options include fasciectomy and an injectable, collagenase clostridium histolyticum. No cost comparison studies have been published within the Australian health care environment. Methods: A retrospective review of all patients treated for Dupuytren’s disease in a major teaching hospital was undertaken to compare the costs of treatment by fasciectomy or collagenase injection. Results: Eighteen patients underwent fasciectomy and 21 collagenase clostridium histolyticum injections were performed during the study period and were eligible for inclusion under the review criteria. Of the 39 patients, 36 were male and 3 were female with an average age 66.4 years (50–85). Twenty-five digits were treated by fasciectomy in 18 patients, and 23 digits were treated by collagenase in 21 patients. The fasciectomy group attended an average 9.2 visits (5–22), incurring an average costing of US$5738.12 per patient ($3181.18–$9618.10). The collagenase group attended an average 3.8 visits (3–8), incurring an average costing of US$2076.83 per patient ($1842.24–$3929.57). Conclusions: Collagenase treatment of Dupuytren’s contracture represents a significant reduction in cost relative to fasciectomy, with 64% savings, length of follow up and number of visits. This is a similar finding to studies in other countries.

Download Full-text

Choice of sequential biologic therapies in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC): A cost comparison analysis for wild-type KRAS mCRC patient population in Brazil.

Journal of Clinical Oncology ◽

10.1200/jco.2013.31.15_suppl.e14679 ◽

2013 ◽

Vol 31 (15_suppl) ◽

pp. e14679-e14679

Author(s):

Rui Weschenfelder ◽

Caio Timko Buschinelli

Keyword(s):

Colorectal Cancer ◽

Treatment Options ◽

Drug Acquisition ◽

Cost Savings ◽

Cost Comparison ◽

Wild Type ◽

Payer Perspective ◽

Third Line ◽

Cost Comparison Analysis ◽

Entire Treatment

e14679 Background: Colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer and the second leading cause of cancer-related death in Brazil. Metastatic disease affects up to 50% of patients resulting in 5-year survival of less than 10%. Therefore, there is an increasing interest about the best treatment options, mainly regarding biologics and their sequencing across first line (1L) and second line (2L) treatment of mCRC. Modern series show that the probability of a patient receives 1L, 2L and a third line (3L) therapy is approximately 99%, 70% and 40%, respectively. In addition, in 2012, the ML 18147 study demonstrated the benefit of sequential use, 1L and 2L, of bevacizumab (bev) based combination in mCRC and considering this emerging data, it is important to understand the implications in terms of costs for the Brazilian private healthcare system. Methods: A costing tool was developed to compare the sequencing costs of 1L → 2L regimens used for treatment of wild-type KRAS mCRC patients. Dosing schedules were derived from labels, clinical trials and expert opinion. Analysis was performed from a private payer perspective and included drug-acquisition and administration costs only. Sequences in the ML18147 study (1L bev 5mg/kg+FOLFOX → 2L bev 5mg/kg+FOLFIRI and 1L bev 5mg/kg+FOLFIRI→2L bev 5mg/kg+FOLFOX) were compared to another frequently used sequence in Brazil where bev is replaced by cetuximab(cet) in 1L (1L cet 400-250mg/m2+ FOLFIRI → 2L bev 5 mg/Kg + FOLFOX). Results: Average costs per patient per month were Brz 21,285.50 for sequences with bev in 1L and 2L and Brz 24,191.68 when bev is replaced by cet in 1L. The average cost savings per patient for the entire treatment were Brz 28,767 (1L bev 5mg/kg + FOLFOX → 2L bev 5mg/kg + FOLFIRI vs 1L cet + FOLFIRI → 2L bev + FOLFOX) and Brz 29,938 (1L bev 5mg/kg + FOLFIRI → 2L bev 5mg/kg + FOLFOX vs1L cet + FOLFIRI → 2L bev + FOLFOX). Conclusions: Sequential use of bev in 1L and 2L mCRC according to the ML18147 study protocol is less costly compared to another sequence of biologics that starts with cet in 1L followed by bev in 2L. Resources savings with sequential bev have the potential to optimize 3L treatment strategy for wild-type kras mCRC patients in Brazil.

Download Full-text

Cost-comparison analysis of a multiplatform tumour profiling service to guide advanced cancer treatment

Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation ◽

10.1186/s12962-019-0191-6 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 17 (1) ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Gilbert Spizzo ◽

Uwe Siebert ◽

Guenther Gastl ◽

Andreas Voss ◽

Klaus Schuster ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Advanced Cancer ◽

Treatment Cost ◽

Treatment Plan ◽

Treatment Options ◽

In Situ Hybridisation ◽

Treatment Decision ◽

Treatment Costs ◽

Cost Comparison ◽

Advanced Cancer Patients ◽

Tumor Profiling

Abstract Background Tumor profiling is increasingly used in advanced cancer patients to define treatment options, especially in refractory cases where no standard treatment is available. Caris Molecular Intelligence (CMI) is a multiplatform tumor profiling service that is comprehensive of next-generation sequencing (NGS) of DNA and RNA, immunohistochemistry (IHC) and in situ hybridisation (FISH). The aim of this study is to compare costs of CMI-guided treatment with prior or planned treatment options in correlation with outcome results. Methods Retrospective data from five clinical trials were collected to define the treatment decision prior to the receipt of the CMI report (n = 137 patients). A systematic review of treatment data from 11 clinical studies of CMI (n = 385 patients) allowed a comparison of planned vs actual (n = 137) and prior vs actual (n = 229) treatment costs. Results Treatment plan was changed in 88% of CMI-profiled cases. The actual CMI guided treatment cost per cycle was £995 in 385 treated patients. Planned treatment costs were comparable to actual treatment costs (£979 vs £945; p = 0.7123) and prior treatment costs were not significantly different to profiling-guided treatments (£892 vs £850; p = 0.631). Conclusions Caris Molecular Intelligence guided treatment cost per cycle was in the range of prior or planned treatment cost/cycle. Due to beneficial overall survival the additional cost of performing CMI’s multiplatform testing to the treatment costs seems to be cost-effective.

Download Full-text

Cost Comparison of Radiation Treatment Options After Lumpectomy for Breast Cancer

Annals of Surgical Oncology ◽

10.1245/s10434-012-2546-5 ◽

2012 ◽

Vol 19 (10) ◽

pp. 3275-3281 ◽

Cited By ~ 39

Author(s):

Rachel A. Greenup ◽

Melissa S. Camp ◽

Alphonse G. Taghian ◽

Julliette Buckley ◽

Suzanne B. Coopey ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Breast Cancer ◽

Radiation Treatment ◽

Treatment Options ◽

Cost Comparison

Download Full-text

The Collaborative Network Approach: a model for advancing patient-centric research for Castleman disease and other rare diseases

Emerging Topics in Life Sciences ◽

10.1042/etls20180178 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 3 (1) ◽

pp. 97-105

Author(s):

Mary Zuccato ◽

Dustin Shilling ◽

David C. Fajgenbaum

Keyword(s):

Rare Diseases ◽

Treatment Options ◽

Castleman Disease ◽

High Impact ◽

Collaborative Network ◽

Network Approach ◽

Grant Applications ◽

Research Questions ◽

Novel Strategy ◽

Patient Centric

Abstract There are ∼7000 rare diseases affecting 30 000 000 individuals in the U.S.A. 95% of these rare diseases do not have a single Food and Drug Administration-approved therapy. Relatively, limited progress has been made to develop new or repurpose existing therapies for these disorders, in part because traditional funding models are not as effective when applied to rare diseases. Due to the suboptimal research infrastructure and treatment options for Castleman disease, the Castleman Disease Collaborative Network (CDCN), founded in 2012, spearheaded a novel strategy for advancing biomedical research, the ‘Collaborative Network Approach’. At its heart, the Collaborative Network Approach leverages and integrates the entire community of stakeholders — patients, physicians and researchers — to identify and prioritize high-impact research questions. It then recruits the most qualified researchers to conduct these studies. In parallel, patients are empowered to fight back by supporting research through fundraising and providing their biospecimens and clinical data. This approach democratizes research, allowing the entire community to identify the most clinically relevant and pressing questions; any idea can be translated into a study rather than limiting research to the ideas proposed by researchers in grant applications. Preliminary results from the CDCN and other organizations that have followed its Collaborative Network Approach suggest that this model is generalizable across rare diseases.

Download Full-text

Establishing a Group Educational Session for Hyperacusis Patients

American Journal of Audiology ◽

10.1044/2019_aja-18-0148 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 28 (2) ◽

pp. 245-250

Author(s):

Ann E. Perreau ◽

Richard S. Tyler ◽

Patricia C. Mancini ◽

Shelley Witt ◽

Mohamed Salah Elgandy

Keyword(s):

Therapeutic Process ◽

Treatment Options ◽

Clinical Group ◽

Education Session ◽

Group Approach ◽

Treatment Protocols ◽

Educational Session ◽

Evidence Based Treatment ◽

Relationship Of ◽

The Relationship

Purpose Audiologists should be treating hyperacusis patients. However, it can be difficult to know where to begin because treatment protocols and evidence-based treatment studies are lacking. A good place to start in any tinnitus and hyperacusis clinic is to incorporate a group educational session. Method Here, we outline our approach to establishing a hyperacusis group educational session that includes specific aspects of getting to know each patient to best meet their needs, understanding the problems associated with hyperacusis, explaining the auditory system and the relationship of hyperacusis to hearing loss and tinnitus, describing the influence of hyperacusis on daily life, and introducing treatment options. Subjective responses from 11 adults with hyperacusis, who participated in a recent clinical group education session, were discussed to illustrate examples from actual patients. Conclusions Due to the devastating nature of hyperacusis, patients need to be reassured that they are not alone and that they can rely on audiologists to provide support and guidance. A group approach can facilitate the therapeutic process by connecting patients with others who are also affected by hyperacusis, and by educating patients and significant others on hyperacusis and its treatment options. Supplemental Material https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.8121197

Download Full-text