PP391 Economic Analysis Of Treatment For Spinal Muscular Atrophy: A Scoping Review

2020 ◽  
Vol 36 (S1) ◽  
pp. 33-33
Author(s):  
Chengaxin Duan ◽  
Binyan Sui ◽  
Kun Zhao ◽  
Dandan Ai ◽  
Qian Xu

IntroductionSpinal muscular atrophy (SMA) is a rare, life-threatening, and seriously debilitating neuromuscular disorder, which has a heavy burden on patients, caregivers and the health system. Technological advances have improved clinical effect, but have also increased the financial burden. There is limited information in the literature on the resource utilization and economic burden of SMA. Our research aims to summarize the current literature on resource use, cost and economic evaluations of treatments for SMA, to inform further research and policy decision making.MethodsDatabases, including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and CRD Database, were searched from inception. Two reviewers undertook title and abstract screening followed by full-text screening, and any disagreement was resolved in consensus. Data extraction was conducted using a customized form. Included studies were summarized using narrative synthesis structured around general and economic characteristics. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were adhered to where applicable.ResultsWe reviewed 552 abstracts and included twenty-six from 2015 to 2019. Four-fifths were published in the United States and Europe. Five full economic evaluations and one budget impact analysis compared nusinersen with AVXS-101 or best supportive care, and the remaining evaluated the economic burden of SMA. The most common outcomes were healthcare resource utilization and direct medical costs, only a few studies evaluated direct non-medical costs or indirect cost.ConclusionsSMA patients have significant medical expenditures and high utilization of healthcare services, including nusinersen-treated patients. The results highlight the substantial burden of treatment for SMA, not only for patients but also for their caregivers. SMA represents a significant hidden cost that society should be made aware of, and that should be considered in the design, implementation and evaluation of support programs for people who suffer from this disease and their families, as well as in the economic evaluation of new treatments.

2019 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 70-79 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marcus Droege ◽  
Douglas Sproule ◽  
Ramesh Arjunji ◽  
Marjolaine Gauthier-Loiselle ◽  
Martin Cloutier ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Carrie Riestenberg ◽  
Anika Jagasia ◽  
Daniela Markovic ◽  
Richard P Buyalos ◽  
Ricardo Azziz

Abstract Context Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) is the most common endocrine disorder of reproductive-aged women, affecting approximately 5-20% of women of reproductive age. A previous estimate noted that the economic burden of PCOS approximates $3.7 billion annually in 2020 USD when considering only the costs of the initial diagnosis and of reproductive endocrine morbidities, not considering the costs of pregnancy-related and long-term morbidities. Objective To estimate the excess prevalence and economic burden of pregnancy-related and long-term health morbidities attributable to PCOS. Data Sources PubMed, EmBase and Cochrane Library. Study Selection Studies in which the diagnosis of PCOS was consistent with the Rotterdam, National Institutes of Health (NIH), or Androgen Excess & PCOS (AE-PCOS) Society criteria, or that used electronic medical record diagnosis codes, or diagnosis based on histopathologic sampling were eligible for inclusion. Studies that included an outcome of interest and a control group of non-PCOS patients who were matched or controlled for body mass index (BMI) were included. Data Extraction Two investigators working independently extracted data on study characteristics and outcomes. Data Synthesis Data was pooled using random-effects meta-analysis. The I 2statistic was used to assess inter-study heterogeneity. The quality of selected studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Results The additional total healthcare-related economic burden due to pregnancy-related and long-term morbidities associated with PCOS in the United States is estimated to be $4.3 billion annually in 2020 USD. Conclusions Together with our prior analysis, the economic burden of PCOS is estimated at $8 billion annually in 2020 USD.


2018 ◽  
Vol 34 (S1) ◽  
pp. 133-134
Author(s):  
André Santos ◽  
Cristina Ruas

Introduction:Schizophrenia is a chronic debilitating condition characterized by disorders in thought, affect and behavior. The worldwide prevalence is around 0.3 to 1 percent. The pharmacological treatment is based on antipsychotic drugs, but their efficacy is limited, culminating in discontinuation of treatment, relapses, and readmissions to health services. Quetiapine was initially approved for use in the United States of America in 1997. The drug has moderate affinity for D2 and 5-HT2A receptors and high affinity for H1 receptors. This study aimed to conduct an assessment of the cost-utility of quetiapine for schizophrenia around the world.Methods:Cost-utility studies of head-to-head comparisons of quetiapine against other antipsychotic drugs for the treatment of patients with schizophrenia and related disorders were included, irrespective of the diagnostic criteria used. An electronic search on Medline, Lilacs, Center for Reviews and Dissemination, The Cochrane Library and PsycINFO was conducted and complemented by references of included studies, Google Scholar and conference abstracts. Monetary values were converted to PPP-USD for the same base-year of the study.Results:Six economic evaluations were included, representing four countries and a multicentric analysis. Comparisons between quetiapine and twelve other antipsychotic drugs were identified. Three studies found quetiapine to be dominated by risperidone and the remaining three found it to be more expensive and more effective with incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) values of USD 36,535, 8,786 and USD 127,600 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Three studies found quetiapine, in comparison to olanzapine, to be inferior, one found it to be superior and two studies found it to be more expensive and more effective with ICER values of USD 139,699 and USD 224,000 per QALY. The reports were considered to be of reasonable quality. Yet the mixture of contexts might influence the results.Conclusions:In general, there seems to be a trend favoring olanzapine and risperidone over quetiapine. None of the studies favored quetiapine over all the other drugs.


2020 ◽  
Vol 222 (11) ◽  
pp. 1910-1919 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah M Bartsch ◽  
Kelly J O’Shea ◽  
Bruce Y Lee

Abstract Background Although norovirus outbreaks periodically make headlines, it is unclear how much attention norovirus may receive otherwise. A better understanding of the burden could help determine how to prioritize norovirus prevention and control. Methods We developed a computational simulation model to quantify the clinical and economic burden of norovirus in the United States. Results A symptomatic case generated $48 in direct medical costs, $416 in productivity losses ($464 total). The median yearly cost of outbreaks was $7.6 million (range across years, $7.5–$8.2 million) in direct medical costs, and $165.3 million ($161.1–$176.4 million) in productivity losses ($173.5 million total). Sporadic illnesses in the community (incidence, 10–150/1000 population) resulted in 14 118–211 705 hospitalizations, 8.2–122.9 million missed school/work days, $0.2–$2.3 billion in direct medical costs, and $1.4–$20.7 billion in productivity losses ($1.5–$23.1 billion total). The total cost was $10.6 billion based on the current incidence estimate (68.9/1000). Conclusion Our study quantified norovirus’ burden. Of the total burden, sporadic cases constituted >90% (thus, annual burden may vary depending on incidence) and productivity losses represented 89%. More than half the economic burden is in adults ≥45, more than half occurs in winter months, and >90% of outbreak costs are due to person-to-person transmission, offering insights into where and when prevention/control efforts may yield returns.


2019 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
pp. 204201881982821 ◽  
Author(s):  
Enrique Grande ◽  
Ángel Díaz ◽  
Carlos López ◽  
Javier Munarriz ◽  
Juan-José Reina ◽  
...  

Background: Despite current interest, enthusiasm and progress in the development of therapies for gastroenteropancreatic (GEP) neuroendocrine tumors (NETs), there are substantial gaps in the published literature regarding cost-of-illness analyses, economic evaluation and budget impact analyses. Compounding the issue is that data on resource utilization and cost-effectiveness of different diagnostic and therapeutic modalities for GEP-NETs are scarce. Methods: A systematic review on the economic impact of GEP-NETs was carried out using four databases: EMBASE, PubMed, the National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database and Cochrane review. Fully published articles from January 2000 to May 2017, in English and Spanish, were included. All articles that satisfied the inclusion criteria were included in the systematic review; summary descriptive statistics were used to describe the methodological characteristics. Results: The 14 studies selected included cost-of-illness analyses ( n = 4), economic evaluations ( n = 7) and budget impact analyses ( n = 3). Almost all studies were performed in the United States. Healthcare costs for patients with NETs included medication, outpatient visits, hospitalizations, and check-ups/tests. Reducing adverse events is an area where cost savings could be achieved; however, there was not enough evidence on the cost impact of adverse events. Conclusion: There is a lack of data related to resource utilization in the field of GEP-NETs. Therefore, cost-effectiveness and budget impact studies of existing and emerging treatments are urgently needed to help the decision-making process for patients with NETs.


Blood ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 5826-5826
Author(s):  
Crystal Watson ◽  
Arie Barlev ◽  
Jodie Worrall ◽  
Steve Duff ◽  
Rachel Beckerman

Objectives: CHOP (vincristine, cyclophosphamide, prednisone, doxorubicin) is a treatment option for post-transplant lymphoproliferative disorder (PTLD) following solid organ transplant, an aggressive and potentially fatal disease. The most common and impactful CHOP-related adverse events (AEs) are febrile neutropenia (FN), chemotherapy-induced (CI) peripheral neuropathy (PN), infection, CI-anemia (A), and CI-nausea and vomiting (NV). These CHOP-related AEs have a large humanistic burdensignificant impact to quality of life (QoL) of patients, especially shortly after treatment. The evidence for a positive QoL benefit associated with some AE treatments (e.g., erythropoietin stimulating agents [ESA], granulocyte colony stimulating factors) is inconsistent and many patients likely remain with QoL deficits even after treatment. The impact of these short-term CHOP-related AEs is likely to be accompanied by an increase in healthcare resource utilization and costs. The objective of this study was to explore the economic burden of short-term CHOP-associated AEs in PTLD patients. Since PTLD is a rare disease with limited available data, we expanded our search to include all patients with lymphoproliferative disorders (LPD). Methods: Short-term (within several months after treatment) AEs associated with CHOP with an incidence of >4% in patients with LPDs were determined and sourced from the published literature and cancer websites. A comprehensive literature search was conducted using PubMed and EMBASE to identify economic burden studies published from 2010 to 2018 of the AEs associated with CHOP and its components in the United States (US). Studies incorporating rituximab alongside CHOP (CHOP + R) were also included as this is a valid treatment option for PTLD patients. Economic burden was defined as the management costs and resource utilization associated with treating CHOP-emergent adverse events. The conduct of this comprehensive literature review was guided by the PRISMA protocol wherein the research question (using the PICOS format), search strategy, target short-term AEs, and inclusion and exclusion criteria were pre-specified in detail. Results: Overall, 3,946 non-duplicate citations were screened, 39 studies were included for abstraction and no studies included patients with PTLD. Studies were methodologically heterogenous, with approximately half (56%) based on some form of retrospective analysis or prospective observational study. FN was the AE most commonly encountered, followed by CIA, infection, CI-nausea and vomiting, and CIPN. FN was an important driver of hospitalization (proportion of FN patients with hospitalization was up to 83.2%) and extended length of stay (LOS) was substantial for several AEs (LOS range in days: infection, 8.4-23.6; FN, 7.9-19.7). Mean LOS was longer in FN patients with multiple hospitalizations as well as in FN patients with comorbidities. Rates of transfusion in CI-anemia patients varied dramatically, from 10.8% to 47.4%. Transfusion rates were attenuated by ESA use in LPD patients, although a significant proportion of anemic cancer patients receiving ESAs still required transfusions. Total management costs were highly variable, ranging from nominal for events such as CIPN to over $197,000 in hospitalization costs per infection discharge per patients complicated with clostridium difficile. One recent study showed the inpatient costs attributable to FN were $33,006 per patient per episode. Studies identified CINV as a top reason for unplanned service use, but no studies were identified assessing its economic impact in LPD patients. Outpatient care costs for each AE varied but tended to have a low to moderate economic impact. The costs attributable to several AEs (FN, infection) were highest in the first cycle of chemotherapy. Conclusions: Several common short-term AEs due to CHOP in the LPD population were associated with substantial healthcare resource utilization and costs that were primarily driven by increased hospitalization and length of inpatient stays. Costs for FN and infections associated with CHOP ranged from $33,000 to over $197,000, demonstrating the high economic burden to the US healthcare system. No PTLD-specific studies were found, highlighting the absence of published data addressing the economic burden associated with chemotherapy in PTLD patients and the need for effective and tolerable therapies. Disclosures Watson: Atara Biotherapeutics: Employment, Equity Ownership. Barlev:Atara Biotherapeutics: Employment, Equity Ownership. Worrall:Atara Biotherapeutics, Inc: Consultancy. Duff:Atara Biotherapeutics, Inc: Consultancy. Beckerman:Atara Biotherapeutics, Inc: Consultancy.


2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e18383-e18383
Author(s):  
Ryan Huey ◽  
Goldy George ◽  
Penny Phillips ◽  
Revenda White ◽  
Siqing Fu ◽  
...  

e18383 Background: Clinical trials are an important therapeutic option for cancer patients. Although financial burden in cancer treatment is well-described, the financial burden associated with clinical trials is not well understood, especially for patients with lower socioeconomic status. Methods: We conducted a survey regarding economic burden and financial toxicity among cancer patients on Phase I clinical trials for at least 1 month. Financial Toxicity Score (FTS) was assessed using the validated COmprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity (COST) survey (scale 0-44, lower scores indicating worse financial toxicity). Patients also reported monthly out of pocket (OOP) medical and non-medical expenses. Results: Of 147 consecutive patients approached, 105 agreed to participate; median age = 60y; 62% female; 49% had annual income < $60K; 50% lived < 300 miles from the clinic; 34% required air travel; 41% had Medicare, 50% had employer sponsored insurance. Median FTS = 20, with interquartile range of 12.5. Median monthly OOP costs for non-medical expenses was $985, and for medical expenses was $475. Median total monthly OOP costs was $1695. Compared to patients in the highest quartile of FTS, a significantly lower % of patients in the lowest (worst) quartile of FTS had incomes > $60K (27% v. 77%, P < 0.001), and a significantly higher % were unemployed or not working outside the home (54% v. 12%, P = 0.001), and incurred higher than expected medical (39% vs. 12%, P = 0.025) and non-medical (64% vs. 15%, P = 0.003) expenses. Compared with patients for whom medical costs were not much higher than expected, a significantly higher % of patients with medical costs much higher than expected were non-White (77% v. 46%, P = 0.004) and unemployed/not working outside the home (46% v. 19%, P = 0.009). Conclusions: Among cancer patients participating on clinical trials, economic burden is high and financial toxicity is disproportionally higher in patients with lower income. OOP costs can be substantial and are often unexpected for patients.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document