Work/study productivity gain and associated indirect cost savings with guselkumab compared with adalimumab in moderate-to-severe psoriasis: results from the VOYAGE 1 study

Author(s):  
N. Li ◽  
A. Teeple ◽  
E. Muser ◽  
Y. You ◽  
M. Song ◽  
...  
Author(s):  
Claudia Langebrake ◽  
Heike Hilgarth

The next challenge will be the creation of a tool to determine the economic effects of pharmacists’ interventions. Up to now, there is the possibility to enter direct cost savings that can be generated through the rational use of medicines. The calculation of indirect cost savings (for example reduction of the length of stay, reduction of costs arising from inappropriate dosage, adverse effects or interactions, decrease of morbidity and/or mortality) is much more difficult, and therefore has not yet been included into DokuPIK.


2016 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 182-192 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Cawley ◽  
Chad Meyerhoefer ◽  
Leah G. Gillingham ◽  
Penny Kris-Etherton ◽  
Peter J. H. Jones

2019 ◽  
Vol 22 ◽  
pp. S902
Author(s):  
A. Schubert ◽  
R. Villacorta ◽  
J. Davila ◽  
A. Cordon ◽  
N. Afonso

2018 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Hezekiah O Adeyemi ◽  
Ayoola A. Babalola ◽  
Amos O. Olatunji ◽  
Olasunkanmi O. Akinyemi ◽  
Raheem T. Akinosho

This study evaluated level of work-study approach (wsa) to productivity advancement in Southwest-Nigeria Portable Water Producing Factories (PWPF). Objectives were to, measure productivity trend (PT) and, evaluate managers’ recognition and contribution(s) of wsa to productivity growth. PT was measured from 4 years records provided by 50 employers in 50 PWPF. Questionnaires were used on the employers and 120 employees to measure adopted wsa and impacts with responses reported on the scale of 1 to 5. Data was analyzed using t-test statistical analysis. The best performed PWPF was rated 43.75%. Disloyalty, low remuneration, lack of trainings and unsafe workplace were the major factors reported to have influenced the PT. Machinery Utilization (MeU) maximization was the commonly adopted approach. The employers’ ratings of MeU statistically significantly lower (mean=3.6364, SEM= 0.06913) to that of employees (mean=3.7333 SEM=0.6645) t(169) =0.641, p=0.522. Human resources management (p=0.235) and workers’ performance evaluation (p=0.906) were also significant and rated above average. However, work-method, safe work-practices and work-demands reviews, which were key attributes of ergonomic techniques and workers-related factors (wrf), were not significant, rated below average. The author concluded that neglects of wrf in wsa, must have greatly contributed to the weak PT of the industry and should be properly addressed to enhance productivity growth. Keywords— ergonomic, industry, productivity, water, work-study


2021 ◽  
Vol Publish Ahead of Print ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrea K. Kennedy ◽  
Gaurav Kaushik ◽  
Emma L. Dubinsky ◽  
Aytakin Huseynli ◽  
Melissa Jonson-Reid ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Syed Mohamed Aljunid ◽  
Lama Al Bashir ◽  
Aniza Binti Ismail ◽  
Azimatun Noor Aizuddin ◽  
S A Zafirah ◽  
...  

Abstract Background: The decision to implement new vaccines should be supported by public health and economic evaluations. Therefore, this study was primarily designed to evaluate the economic impact of switching from partially combined vaccine (Pentaxim® plus hepatitis B) to fully combined vaccine (Hexaxim®) in the Malaysian National Immunization Program (NIP) and to investigate healthcare professionals (HCPs)’ and parents/caregivers’ perceptions.Methods: In this economic evaluation study, 22 primary healthcare centers were randomly selected in Malaysia between December 2019 and July 2020. The baseline immunization schedule includes switching from Pentaxim® (four doses) and hepatitis B (three doses) to Hexaxim® (four doses), whereas alternative scheme includes switching from Pentaxim® (four doses) and hepatitis B (three doses) to Hexaxim® (four doses) and hepatitis B (one dose) administered at birth. Direct medical costs were extracted using a costing questionnaire and an observational time and motion chart. Direct non-medical (cost for transportation) and indirect costs (loss of productivity) were derived from parents/caregiver’s questionnaire. The vaccine societal cost was calculated as cost per dose, per fully immunized child and per birth cohort, and then the net cost savings were calculated upon the total cost of Hexaxim® and Pentaxim® plus hepatitis B. Also, HCPs’ and parents/caregiver’s perceptions were investigated using structured questionnaires.Results: The cost per dose of Pentaxim® plus hepatitis B vs. Hexaxim® was Malaysian ringgit (RM) 31.90 vs. 17.10 (direct medical cost), RM 54.40 vs. RM 27.20 (direct non-medical cost), RM 221.33 vs. RM 110.66 (indirect cost), and RM 307.63 vs. RM 155.00 (total cost). Similar trend was observed for alternative scheme. Compared with Pentaxim® plus hepatitis B, total cost savings per dose of Hexaxim® were RM 137.20 and RM 104.70 in the baseline and alternative scheme, respectively. Conclusions: Incorporation of Hexaxim® within Malaysian NIP is highly recommended because the use of Hexaxim® has demonstrated substantial direct and indirect cost savings for healthcare providers and parents/caregivers with high percentage of positive perceptions, compared with Pentaxim® plus hepatitis B.Trial registration: Not applicable


2011 ◽  
Vol 25 (9) ◽  
pp. 492-496 ◽  
Author(s):  
David G Binion ◽  
Edouard Louis ◽  
Bas Oldenburg ◽  
Parvez Mulani ◽  
Arielle G Bensimon ◽  
...  

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of adalimumab on work productivity and indirect costs in patients with Crohn’s disease (CD) using a meta-analysis of clinical trials.METHODS: Study-level results were pooled from all clinical trials of adalimumab for moderate to severe CD in which work productivity outcomes were evaluated. Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire outcomes (absenteeism, presenteeism and total work productivity impairment [TWPI]) were extracted from adalimumab trials. Meta-analyses were used to estimate pooled averages and 95% CIs of one-year accumulated reductions in work productivity impairment with adalimumab. Pooled averages were multiplied by the 2008 United States national average annual salary ($44,101) to estimate per-patient indirect cost savings during the year following adalimumab initiation.RESULTS: The four included trials (ACCESS, CARE, CHOICE and EXTEND) represented a total of 1202 employed adalimumab-treated patients at baseline. Each study followed patients for a minimum of 20 weeks. Pooled estimates (95% CIs) of one-year accumulated work productivity improvements were as follows: −9% (−10% to −7%) for absenteeism; −22% (−26% to −18%) for presenteeism; and −25% (−30% to −20%) for TWPI. Reductions in absenteeism and TWPI translated into per-patient indirect cost savings (95% CI) of $3,856 ($3,183 to $4,529) and $10,964 ($8,833 to $13,096), respectively.CONCLUSION: Adalimumab provided clinically meaningful improvements in work productivity among patients with moderate to severe CD, which may translate into substantial indirect cost savings from an employer’s perspective.


2022 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Syed Mohamed Aljunid ◽  
Lama Al Bashir ◽  
Aniza Binti Ismail ◽  
Azimatun Noor Aizuddin ◽  
S. A. Zafirah Abdul Rashid ◽  
...  

Abstract Background The decision to implement new vaccines should be supported by public health and economic evaluations. Therefore, this study was primarily designed to evaluate the economic impact of switching from partially combined vaccine (Pentaxim® plus hepatitis B) to fully combined vaccine (Hexaxim®) in the Malaysian National Immunization Program (NIP) and to investigate healthcare professionals (HCPs)’ and parents’/caregivers’ perceptions. Methods In this economic evaluation study, 22 primary healthcare centers were randomly selected in Malaysia between December 2019 and July 2020. The baseline immunization schedule includes switching from Pentaxim® (four doses) and hepatitis B (three doses) to Hexaxim® (four doses), whereas the alternative scheme includes switching from Pentaxim® (four doses) and hepatitis B (three doses) to Hexaxim® (four doses) and hepatitis B (one dose) administered at birth. Direct medical costs were extracted using a costing questionnaire and an observational time and motion chart. Direct non-medical (cost for transportation) and indirect costs (loss of productivity) were derived from parents’/caregivers’ questionnaire. Also, HCPs’ and parent’s/caregivers’ perceptions were investigated using structured questionnaires. Results The cost per dose of Pentaxim® plus hepatitis B vs. Hexaxim® for the baseline scheme was Malaysian ringgit (RM) 31.90 (7.7 United States dollar [USD]) vs. 17.10 (4.1 USD) for direct medical cost, RM 54.40 (13.1 USD) vs. RM 27.20 (6.6 USD) for direct non-medical cost, RM 221.33 (53.3 USD) vs. RM 110.66 (26.7 USD) for indirect cost, and RM 307.63 (74.2 USD) vs. RM 155.00 (37.4 USD) for societal (total) cost. A similar trend was observed for the alternative scheme. Compared with Pentaxim® plus hepatitis B, total cost savings per dose of Hexaxim® were RM 137.20 (33.1 USD) and RM 104.70 (25.2 USD) in the baseline and alternative scheme, respectively. Eighty-four percent of physicians and 95% of nurses supported the use of Hexaxim® in the NIP. The majority of parents/caregivers had a positive perception regarding Hexaxim® vaccine in various aspects. Conclusions Incorporation of Hexaxim® within Malaysian NIP is highly recommended because the use of Hexaxim® has demonstrated substantial direct and indirect cost savings for healthcare providers and parents/caregivers with a high percentage of positive perceptions, compared with Pentaxim® plus hepatitis B. Trial registration Not applicable.


Blood ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 136 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 30-31
Author(s):  
Mir Sohail Fazeli ◽  
Divya Pushkarna ◽  
Ana Howarth ◽  
Margaret Hux ◽  
Mir-Masoud Pourrahmat ◽  
...  

Introduction: The treatment landscape for hematologic malignancies is evolving rapidly, and a range of therapeutic options with differing routes of administration is now available. The shifting dynamics of these novel therapies and increasing total treatment costs highlight the importance of value-based healthcare decisions that take patient, payer, and societal perspectives into account. It is therefore increasingly important to consider both direct and indirect costs when evaluating therapeutic options. Reducing healthcare visits for administration of non-oral therapies (injectable and/or mixed therapies) results in indirect cost savings and is of particular relevance during the current coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic where there are distinct challenges with respect to visiting hospital settings. However, the indirect cost savings of utilizing oral versus non-oral treatments have yet to be fully assessed from a patient and societal perspective. The objective of this review was to assess the differences in indirect non-treatment-related costs between oral and non-oral therapies for hematologic malignancies. Methods: A systematic literature review (SLR) was conducted by searching the Embase®, MEDLINE®, EconLit, and Health Technology Assessment/National Health Service economic evaluation (HTA/NHS EED) databases from inception to June 2020. Additionally, literature searches of proceedings from the 2018-2020 American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), American Society of Hematology (ASH), and The Professional Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) conferences were performed to capture recent studies not indexed in the main databases. A manual search of the reference list from all included study publications was also performed. Eligibility criteria for study identification were developed using the Population, Intervention, Comparator, and Outcome (PICO) framework. Eligible studies included cost models and observational studies reporting indirect costs from a patient and/or societal perspective for oral versus non-oral therapies. Results: A total of 4,012 records were identified by the searches. Following title/abstract screening, the full text of 25 publications was reviewed, and 5 studies conducted in the USA (n = 3), Italy (n = 1), and Finland (n = 1) were identified as eligible and selected for qualitative evidence synthesis (Table). Although the SLR protocol included all hematologic malignancies, only studies including patients with multiple myeloma (MM) were identified. The indirect costs reported across the selected studies varied and included costs such as loss of productivity, transportation, and patient and/or caregiver time. Among all 5 studies, total indirect costs for patients with MM were lower for oral versus non-oral regimens. In the USA-based studies, indirect costs were USD 70-1,202 per month for oral regimens versus USD 432-1,526 per month for non-oral regimens. In Europe-based studies, indirect cost estimates were EUR 1,800 versus EUR 17,000 per year for oral versus non-oral regimens (Italian study), and EUR 114 versus EUR 358 per 28-day cycle for oral versus non-oral regimens (Finnish study; averages calculated from ranges in Table). Conclusions: This SLR demonstrates a paucity of data on the indirect costs to patients and society of oral versus non-oral therapies for hematologic malignancies. The studies included in this review assessed differing types of indirect costs, including loss of productivity, transportation costs, and patient and/or caregiver time; however, all indicated that the administration of oral regimens is associated with lower indirect costs compared with non-oral regimens. This finding is compelling given the current global health crisis due to COVID-19, where prioritizing the concept of "value" means assessing more complex issues, such as indirect costs that may have a meaningful impact on patients and society. Disclosures Fazeli: Evidinno Outcomes Research Inc.: Current Employment. Pushkarna:Evidinno Outcomes Research Inc.: Current Employment. Howarth:Evidinno Outcomes Research Inc.: Current Employment. Hux:Evidinno Outcomes Research Inc.: Consultancy. Pourrahmat:Evidinno Outcomes Research Inc.: Current Employment. Chen:Bristol Myers Squibb: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document