The cost-effectiveness of different approaches to exercise and corticosteroid injection for subacromial pain (impingement) syndrome.

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether physiotherapist-led exercise intervention and US-guided subacromial CS injection is cost-effective when compared with standard advice and exercise leaflet and unguided injection in patients with subacromial pain (impingement) syndrome. METHODS: An incremental cost-utility analysis using patient responses to the five-level EuroQoL-5D (EQ-5D-5L) questionnaire was undertaken from a healthcare perspective alongside a 2 × 2 factorial randomized trial with 256 participants over a 12-month follow-up period. Uncertainty was explored through the use of cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. RESULTS: The cost-utility analysis indicated that physiotherapist-led exercise was associated with an incremental cost of £155.99 (95% CI 69.02, 241.93) and 0.031 (95% CI -0.01, 0.07) additional quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £5031 per QALY gained and an 85% chance of being cost-effective at a threshold of £20 000 per QALY gained compared with the advice and exercise leaflet. US-guided injection was associated with an incremental cost of £15.89 (95% CI -59.36, 109.86) and 0.024 (95% CI -0.02, 0.07) additional QALYs, an ICER of £662 per QALY gained and a 83% chance of being cost-effective at a threshold of £20 000 per QALY gained compared with unguided injection. CONCLUSION: Physiotherapist-led exercise was cost-effective compared with the advice and exercise leaflet, and US-guided injection was cost-effective when compared with unguided injection. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN, http://www.isrctn.com, ISRCTN42399123.

Economic impact of severe asthma exacerbations in Spain: multicentre observational study.

Objective: To describe resource use and costs of severe exacerbations in patients with severe asthma.Method: Secondary analysis of an observational, longitudinal, retrospective study that estimated the economic impact of severe asthma. The study was carried out in severe asthma units of the pulmonology and allergy services of 20 public hospitals (inclusion period: June to November 2016). The study included adult patients diagnosed with severe asthma according to the European Respiratory Society/American Thoracic Society consensus in the stable phase (no exacerbation during the last 2 months), and with at least one severe exacerbation during the study period (12 months). Healthcare resource use due to severe exacerbations (emergency visits, hospitalizations and pharmacological treatment) was recorded. The direct health costs associated with severe exacerbations were calculated by multiplying the resources used by the corresponding unit cost (in 2018 euros).Results: 134 patients with ≥1 severe exacerbation were included: 63% were female and the mean age was 54 years. 249 severe exacerbations were registered. There were 1.5 physician visits at primary care, hospital care and/or emergency room per episode, 13% of episodes required hospitalization, with a mean hospital stay of 7.2 days. Systemic corticosteroids were prescribed in 92% of exacerbations. The mean direct cost was €758.7/exacerbation (95% confidence interval: 556.8-1,011.1), of which 82% was due to hospitalizations (€623.3/episode). Considering only episodes requiring hospital admission, the mean cost increased by €4,997/exacerbation.Conclusions: It was estimated that the economic impact of a severe exacerbation in Spanish patients with severe asthma was €758.7/exacerbation.

Cost-utility of as-needed ICS-formoterol versus to maintenance ICS in mild to moderate persistent asthma.

BACKGROUND: Recent asthma guidelines, such as the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA), recommend in adult patients as-needed inhaled corticosteroids (ICS)-formoterol as an alternative to maintenance ICS in mild to moderate persistent asthma. The introduction of these recommendations concerns whether using as-needed budesonide-formoterol would be more cost-effective than to maintenance ICS. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of as-needed combination low-dose budesonide-formoterol compared to short-acting ß2-agonist (SABA) reliever therapy in patients with mild asthma. METHODS: A probabilistic Markov model was created to estimate the cost and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of patients with mild asthma in Colombia. Total costs and QALYs of low-dose budesonide-formoterol compared to short-acting ß2-agonist (SABA) were calculated over a lifetime horizon. Multiple sensitivity analyses were conducted. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated at a willingness-to-pay value of $19,000. RESULTS: The model suggests a potential gain of 0.37 QALYs and per patient per year on as-needed ICS-formoterol and a reduction in the discounted cost per person-year, of as-needed ICS-formoterol to maintenance ICS, of US$40. This position of dominance of as-needed ICS-formoterol negates the need to calculate an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. In the deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis, our base-case results were robust to variations in all assumptions and parameters. CONCLUSION: Low-dose budesonide-formoterol as a reliever was cost-effective when added to usual care in patients with mild asthma. Our study provides evidence that should be used by decision-makers to improve clinical practice guidelines and should be replicated to validate their results in other middle-income countries.

Cost-utility of triple versus dual inhaler therapy in moderate to severe asthma.

BACKGROUND: An important proportion of asthma patients remain uncontrolled despite using inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting beta-agonists. Clinical guidelines recommend, in these patients, using add-on long-acting muscarinic antagonists (triple therapy) to treatment with high doses of inhaled corticosteroids-long-acting beta2-agonist (dual therapy). The purpose of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of triple therapy versus dual therapy for patients with severe asthma. METHODS: A probabilistic Markov model was created to estimate the cost and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of patients with severe asthma in Colombia. Total costs and QALYS of dual and triple therapy were calculated over a lifetime horizon. Multiple sensitivity analyses were conducted. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated at a willingness-to-pay value of $19,000. RESULTS: The model suggests a potential gain of 1.55 QALYs per patient per year on triple therapy with respect to dual therapy. We observed a difference of US$304 in discounted cost per person-year on triple therapy with respect to dual therapy. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was US$196 in the probabilistic model. In the sensitivity analysis, our base-case results were robust to variations in all assumptions and parameters. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, triple therapy in patients with moderate-severe asthma was cost-effective. Using triple therapy emerges with our results as an alternative before using oral corticosteroids or biologics, especially in resource-limited settings.

Health and cost impact of stepping down asthma medication for UK patients, 2001-2017: A population-based observational study.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend stepping down asthma treatment to the minimum effective dose to achieve symptom control, prevent adverse side effects, and reduce costs. Limited data exist on asthma prescription patterns in a real-world setting. We aimed to evaluate the appropriateness of doses prescribed to a UK general asthma population and assess whether stepping down medication increased exacerbations or reliever use, as well as its impact on costs. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We used nationwide UK primary care medical records, 2001-2017, to identify 508,459 adult asthma patients managed with preventer medication. Prescriptions of higher-level medication: medium/high-dose inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) or ICSs + add-on medication (long-acting ß2-agonist [LABA], leukotriene receptor antagonist [LTRA], theophylline, or long-acting muscarinic antagonist [LAMA]) steadily increased over time (2001 = 49.8%, 2017 = 68.3%). Of those prescribed their first preventer, one-third were prescribed a higher-level medication, of whom half had no reliever prescription or exacerbation in the year prior. Of patients first prescribed ICSs + 1 add-on, 70.4% remained on the same medication during a mean follow-up of 6.6 years. Of those prescribed medium/high-dose ICSs as their first preventer, 13.0% already had documented diabetes, cataracts, glaucoma, or osteopenia/osteoporosis. A cohort of 125,341 patients were drawn to assess the impact of stepping down medication: mean age 50.4 years, 39.4% males, 39,881 stepped down. Exposed patients were stepped down by dropping their LABAs or another add-on or by halving their ICS dose (halving their mean-daily dose or their inhaler dose). The primary and secondary outcomes were, respectively, exacerbations and an increase in reliever prescriptions. Multivariable regression was used to assess outcomes and determine the prognostic factors for initiating stepdown. There was no increased exacerbation risk for each possible medication stepdown (adjusted hazard ratio, 95% CI, p-value: ICS inhaler dose = 0.86, 0.77-0.93, p < 0.001; ICS mean daily = 0.80, 0.74-0.87, p < 0.001; LABA = 1.01, 0.92-1.11, p = 0.87, other add-on = 1.00, 0.91-1.09, p = 0.79) and no increase in reliever prescriptions (adjusted odds ratio, 95% CI, p-value: ICS inhaler dose = 0.99, 0.98-1.00, p = 0.59; ICS mean daily = 0.78, 0.76-0.79, p < 0.001; LABA = 0.83, 0.82-0.85, p < 0.001; other add-on = 0.86, 0.85-0.87, p < 0.001). Prognostic factors to initiate stepdown included medication burden, but not medication side effects. National Health Service (NHS) indicative prices were used for cost estimates. Stepping down medication, either LABAs or ICSs, could save annually around £17,000,000 or £8,600,000, respectively. Study limitations include the possibility that prescribed medication may not have been dispensed or adhered to and the reason for stepdown was not documented. CONCLUSION: In this UK study, we observed that asthma patients were increasingly prescribed higher levels of treatment, often without clear clinical indication for such high doses. Stepping down medication did not adversely affect outcomes and was associated with substantial cost savings.

Inhaled Corticosteroid-Containing Regimens Reduce Hospitalizations and Healthcare Costs among Elderly Asthmatics: Real-World Validation Using the National Health Insurance Claims Database.

The high rates of mortality and hospitalization among elderly asthmatics, as well as their increasing healthcare costs have become an important public health issue. It would be worthwhile to assess whether inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) can resolve these problems. To explore ICS prescription rates for elderly asthmatics and the factors influencing them and to investigate their association with hospitalization and healthcare costs, we analyzed data from the National Health Insurance Claims Database for the same time frame (December 1 to February 28) across three different periods (2011-2012; 2014-2015; and 2017-2018), from which we identified 6,619, 5,619, and 6,880 elderly individuals, respectively. The prescription rates of ICS increased (52.8%, 65.5% and 68.8%, in the first, second and third survey period, respectively) and inversely the hospital admission rates declined (3.7%, 3.2% and 2.5%, in the first, second and third survey period, respectively). The total healthcare costs per month were significantly lower for patients who received ICS-containing regimens than for those who did not. A multivariate analysis revealed that increasing age, rural residence, receiving a prescription from a clinic, hospital admission, and prescription of asthma medications other than ICS were associated with non-prescription of ICS, whereas cross-boundary treatment increased the ICS-prescription rate. Our study suggests that increases in the prescription rate of ICS are associated with reduced hospital admission rates and lower medical costs in the real-world. ICS prescription rates in rural areas and at clinics, which remain low, need to be increased.

The impact of budesonide inhalation suspension for asthma hospitalization: In terms of length of stay, recovery time from symptoms, and hospitalization costs.

BACKGROUND: Hospitalization is a major cause of medical expenditure for asthma. Budesonide inhalation suspension (BIS) may assist in reducing asthma-related symptoms in severe asthma exacerbation. However, its effectiveness for hospitalized patients remains poorly known. The objective of this study is to determine associations of BIS with asthma hospitalization. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 98 patients who were admitted to our hospital due to severe asthma exacerbation (24 treated with BIS in combination with procaterol) from April 2014 to January 2019. Length of stay, recovery time from symptoms (wheezes), and hospitalization costs were compared between the 2 groups according to clinical factors including the use of BIS and sings of respiratory infections (i.e. C-reactive protein, the presence of phlegm, and the use of antibiotics). Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to determine factors contributing to hospitalization outcomes. RESULTS: The use of BIS was associated with shorter length of stay, faster recovery time from symptoms, and more reduced hospitalization costs (6.0 vs 8.5 days, 2.5 vs 5.0 days, and 258,260 vs 343,350 JPY). Signs of respiratory infection were also associated with hospitalization outcomes. On a multivariate regression analysis, the use of BIS was a determinant of shortened length of stay and reduced symptoms and medical costs for asthma hospitalization along with signs of respiratory infection. CONCLUSIONS: BIS may contribute to shorten length of hospital stay and to reduce symptoms and medical expenditure irrespective of the presence or absence of respiratory infection.

Drug costs of Medicaid-covered therapies for pemphigus vulgaris treatment.

Pemphigus vulgaris is the most common form of pemphigus affecting an estimated 30,000-40,000 people in the United States. Costs of systemic and immunoglobulin therapies for pemphigus vulgaris have remained persistently high. Herein, we address the current costs and changes in costs of immunosuppressive treatments, anti-inflammatory treatments, and immunoglobulin treatments covered by Medicaid for pemphigus vulgaris from 2013-2020.

Economic Impact of Reducing Inappropriate Inhaled Corticosteroids Use in Patients With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: ISPOR's Guidance on Budget Impact in Practice.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the budget impact of restricting inappropriate inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) use according to the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD)-guidelines indication for ICS use in the chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)-population, taking The Netherlands as a reference case. METHODS: A budget impact model was developed and closely aligned with the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research best-practice guidelines. The model estimates the impact of pharmacologic COPD maintenance treatments on clinical events (exacerbations and pneumonias) and associated healthcare utilization and costs. The current treatment mix included all maintenance treatments including long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMA), long-acting ß2-agonists (LABA), LABA/ICS, LABA/LAMA, and triple therapy (LABA/LAMA/ICS). We modeled a situation where 25% of patients would use ICS-containing treatments and compared this to the current Dutch situation with 60% ICS use. A 5-year time horizon with a Dutch healthcare payer's perspective was used. In sensitivity analyses, a range of values for absolute ICS reduction (20%-40%), relative risks of exacerbations and pneumonia events, and other input parameters were explored. RESULTS: Over a period of 5 years, the new treatment mix with Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease guideline recommended ICS, and LABA/LAMA use resulted in potential avoidance of 17 405 exacerbations and 11 984 pneumonias and accompanied savings of €84 million in the base-case scenario. Savings were consistent in various sensitivity analyses, indicating cost savings between €30 and €200 million. CONCLUSION: Reducing inappropriate ICS use and increasing use of LABA/LAMA in COPD patients could result in a reduction of exacerbations and pneumonias, corresponding with a reduction in total costs for COPD in The Netherlands.

Evaluating direct costs and productivity losses of patients with asthma receiving GINA 4/5 therapy in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Despite the low prevalence for all patients with asthma, those with severe disease account for a disproportionately large economic burden. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate current direct health care and productivity loss costs associated with patients with asthma receiving Global Initiative for Asthma Step 4/5 therapy ("G4/5 asthma") in the United States. METHODS: Asthma patients aged 12 years or older were identified in the IBM MarketScan Research Databases between January 1, 2012 and December 31, 2015. Patients were indexed on their earliest medical claim for asthma and were required to have at last 2 years of continuous eligibility. The G4/5 asthma classification required 1 or more medium- or high-dosage inhaled corticosteroids (ICS)/long-acting beta-agonist (LABA) claims, 1 or more omalizumab claims, or systemic corticosteroids covering at least 50% of the 12-month baseline period. The European Respiratory Society/American Thoracic Society criteria for severe uncontrolled asthma were modified for claims data and used to identify patients with exacerbations or high rescue medication use ("Ex/R″). Direct health care costs and productivity loss costs attributable to workplace absence or short-term or long-term disability were measured during the 12-month post-index period. RESULTS: A total of 605,614 patients with asthma were identified. Annual health care costs were $4,384 greater for G4/5 asthma vs non-G4/5 patients with asthma; asthma-related costs contributed $2,183 of this difference (P < .001). Differences were primarily driven by G4/5 patients with asthma with Ex/R, whose costs were $5,019 greater than G4/5 patients without Ex/R (P < .001). For patients with 1 or more absences or short-term disability claims, G4/5 patients missed 7.2 more work hours for absence and had 3.9 more days of work lost for short-term disability than non-G4/5 patients with asthma, respectively (P < .05). CONCLUSION: G4/5 patients with asthma incurred significantly greater direct and indirect costs than non-G4/5 patients with asthma. Differences were largely driven by those with Ex/R.

A systematic review of the adverse events and economic impact associated with oral corticosteroids in asthma.

Background: Oral corticosteroids (OCSs) are often used to achieve asthma control. OCS-related comorbidities increase the burden of disease for patients and healthcare providers. Most studies characterizing OCS use and risk of adverse events (AEs) are in non-asthma patients. We sought to systematically review the literature on the burden of OCS use among adults with asthma. Methods: We systematically reviewed the literature including MEDLINE (1946-May 2017), EMBASE (1974-May 2017), and the Cochrane Library (2005-May 2017) to identify studies that considered AEs due to OCS treatment of adults with asthma, their burden on healthcare utilization, and costs. Results: We retrieved 9,589 citations; and 15 studies were included. AEs were significantly higher among OCS-users compared with non-OCS users with pooled adjusted odds ratio (OR) 1.68 (95% CI 1.15-2.46) for diabetes mellitus and 1.34 (95% CI 1.23-1.46) for hypertension. Among high dose OCS-users (>10 mg) compared with non-OCS users, the pooled adjusted ORs for development of any complication was 3.35 (95% CI 2.94-3.82), and bone and muscle complications 2.30 (95% CI 2.18-2.42). The risk of any complication increased with higher doses of OCS, with pooled adjusted OR from 2 studies of 2.26 (95% CI 1.37-3.72), 2.94 (95% CI 2.62-3.29) and 3.35 (95% CI 2.94-3.82) for low dose (<6 mg), medium dose (5-12 mg) and high dose (>10 mg) respectively compared with no OCS use. Conclusions: The use of OCS in the management of asthma is associated with a higher risk of complications. This risk is higher as the OCS dose increases.

Is stratification testing for treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbations cost-effective in primary care? an early cost-utility analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) who experience acute exacerbations usually require treatment with oral steroids or antibiotics, depending on the etiology of the exacerbation. Current management is based on clinician's assessment and judgement, which lacks diagnostic accuracy and results in overtreatment. A test to guide these decisions in primary care is in development. We developed an early decision model to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of this treatment stratification test in the primary care setting in the United Kingdom. METHODS: A combined decision tree and Markov model was developed of COPD progression and the exacerbation care pathway. Sensitivity analysis was carried out to guide technology development and inform evidence generation requirements. RESULTS: The base case test strategy cost GBP 423 (USD 542) less and resulted in a health gain of 0.15 quality-adjusted life-years per patient compared with not testing. Testing reduced antibiotic prescriptions by 30 percent, potentially lowering the risk of antimicrobial resistance developing. In sensitivity analysis, the result depended on the clinical effects of treating patients according to the test result, as opposed to treating according to clinical judgement alone, for which there is limited evidence. The results were less sensitive to the accuracy of the test. CONCLUSIONS: Testing may be cost-saving in primary care, but this requires robust evidence on whether test-guided treatment is effective. High quality evidence on the clinical utility of testing is required for early modeling of diagnostic tests generally.

Cost-Utility Analysis of Surgical Decompression Relative to Injection Therapy for Chronic Migraine Headaches.

BACKGROUND: Common treatments for chronic migraine headaches include injection of corticosteroid and anesthetic agents at local trigger sites. However, the effects of therapy are short term, and lifelong treatment is often necessary. In contrast, surgical decompression of migraine trigger sites accomplishes the same goal yet demonstrates successful long-term elimination of chronic migraines. OBJECTIVES: Our primary objective was to perform a cost-utility analysis to determine which patients would benefit most from available treatment options in a cost-conscious model. METHODS: A cost-utility analysis was performed, taking into consideration costs, probabilities, and health state utility scores of various interventions. RESULTS: Injection therapy offered a minor improvement in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) compared with surgical decompression (QALY Δ = 0.6). However, long-term injection therapy was significantly costlier to society than surgical decompression: injection treatment was estimated to cost $106,887.96 more than surgery. The results of our cost-utility analysis thus conferred a positive incremental cost-utility ratio of $178,163.27 in favor of surgical decompression. CONCLUSIONS: Surgery provides a durable intervention and has been shown in this study to be extremely cost effective despite a very minor QALY deficit compared with injection therapy. If patients are identified who require treatment in the form of injections for less than 8.25 years, they may fall into a group that should not be offered surgery.

Economic burden of eczema in a middle-income country: A public hospital-based retrospective study in 2016-2017 in Vietnam.

OBJECTIVES: Eczema, which is synonymous with atopic eczema, is classified as a complex, chronic, and relapsing inflammatory skin condition, affecting both adults and children. However, there has not been any research into health-care expenditure to evaluate the medical cost of eczema from patients' perspective in Vietnam. This retrospective study aimed to fill in the gap concerning the medical cost of eczema treatment from patients' perspective. METHODS: Data from Ho Chi Minh City Hospital of Dermato Venereology's electronic medical database on demographics and drug therapy from June 2016 to May 2017 were collected. The patients who met the study's criteria were included in the study and were then categorized as mild, moderate, and severe according to received treatment level. Bootstrapping methods were used to evaluate average and emphasized the difference of cost burden adjusted by factors. RESULTS: A total of 6,212 patients (52.1% women and 85% urban residents) participated in the study; they were divided into three groups according to treatment stage: mild (n = 3,159, 50.9%), moderate (n = 599, 9.6%), and severe (n = 2,454, 39.5%). The evaluated total cost for the three groups was 5,255.82, 1,064.03, and 5,8154.60 US dollars, respectively; the average expenditure per patient per year was around $12.11 ($11.63-12.59). CONCLUSIONS: The results suggested that the estimated direct medical cost of eczema treatment was much lower than that in the Western countries, mostly because of insurance coverage. The findings provide useful insights into health economic evaluations and treatment costs of eczema in Vietnam.

Economic burden and productivity loss related to eczema: A prevalence-based follow-up study in Vietnam.

OBJECTIVE: Eczema, a chronic dermatologic disease, has been recognized as an economic burden in publications all over the word but only minimally as such in Vietnam. The aim of this prospective study was to quantify the financial hardships and impairments suffered by eczema patients. METHODS: This cross-sectional prevalence-based study involved 136 patients, whose conditions were classified into three severity levels on the basis of the medications that they were prescribed. Prescription therapy was administered for a month, after which there was patient-oriented assessment of effectiveness. The work productivity and activity impairment (WPAI) questionnaire was used to evaluate productivity loss, which was expressed in percentage form. Bootstrapping was conducted to determine continuous variables and demographybased differences in cost values among the patient groups. RESULTS: For the month-long treatment, each eczema patient needed an average of US$68.1 (range: US$56.2- US$81.5) with the highest proportion being spent on cosmetic treatments. There is noticeable difference between groups among which patients' symptoms demonstrated in distinct levels. The estimates indicated that eczema resulted in 27.8% and 23.1% impairments in work and daily activities, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The aggravation of disease symptoms can increase the direct costs borne by eczema patients. A decrease in productivity, which is one of the most serious consequences of the condition, should be paid adequate attention to minimize burdens to society.

Healthcare resource utilization and costs associated with long-term corticosteroid exposure in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus.

Objective To evaluate the association between exposure to oral corticosteroids and future healthcare resource utilization and costs for patients with systemic lupus erythematosus. Methods Adults diagnosed with systemic lupus erythematosus (index date) between 1 January 2008 and 30 June 2013 and naive to oral corticosteroids with continuous health plan enrollment for ≥6 months pre- and ≥5 years post-index were identified from a large health plan claims database. Per-patient monthly average daily dose of oral corticosteroids (prednisone or its equivalent) was calculated for the first 2 years post-index to categorize patients into four steroid exposure cohorts: low (≤5 mg/day), medium (6-20 mg/day), high (>20 mg/day) and no steroids. Differences in healthcare resource utilization and total healthcare costs during the third year post-index across corticosteroid exposure cohorts were modeled with adjustment for baseline characteristics. Results The study included 18,618 systemic lupus erythematosus patients (163 high dose, 1127 medium dose, 6717 low dose and 10,611 no steroids). Compared to low-dose corticosteroid users, high-dose corticosteroid users were more likely to have emergency room visits (39.3% vs. 29.7%; p = 0.0085) and to be hospitalized (21.5% vs. 12.3%; p = 0.0005). After adjustment for baseline characteristics, they also had significantly greater average annual total healthcare costs (US$60,366 vs. US$18,777; p < 0.0001). A 1 mg increase in corticosteroid average daily dose was associated with 1.07 times the average annual costs after adjusting for baseline characteristics ( p < 0.0001). Conclusion Long-term high-dose oral corticosteroid use was associated with significantly greater future healthcare resource utilization and costs. Judicious reduction in daily steroid dose may decrease the imminent economic burden associated with high-dose steroid use in systemic lupus erythematosus.

Burden of asthma and COPD overlap (ACO) in Taiwan: a nationwide population-based study.

BACKGROUND: Patients with symptoms of both asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) may be classified with the term asthma-COPD overlap (ACO). ACO is of considerable interest as it is currently poorly characterised and has been associated with worse health outcomes and higher healthcare costs compared with COPD or asthma alone. Patients with ACO in Asia remain poorly described, and there is limited information regarding their resource utilisation compared with patients with asthma or COPD only. This study investigated the characteristics, disease burden and medical resource utilisation of patients with ACO in Taiwan. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of patients identified from National Health Insurance (NHI) claims data in Taiwan in 2009-2011. Patients were classified into incident ACO, COPD or asthma cohorts according to International Classification of Disease, ninth revision, clinical modification codes in claims. Eligible patients were ≥40 years of age with 12 months' continuous enrolment in the NHI programme pre- and post-index date (date of the first relevant medical claim). RESULTS: Patients with ACO (N = 22,328) and COPD (N = 69,648) were older and more likely to be male than those with asthma (N = 50,293). Patients with ACO had more comorbidities and exacerbations, with higher medication use: short-acting ß2-agonist prescriptions ranged from 30.4% of patients (asthma cohort) to 43.6% (ACO cohort), and inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting ß2-agonist combination prescriptions ranged from 11.1% (COPD cohort) to 35.0% (ACO cohort) in the 12 months following index. Patients with ACO generally had the highest medication costs of any cohort (long-acting muscarinic antagonist costs ranged from $227/patient [asthma cohort] to $349/patient [ACO cohort]); they also experienced more respiratory-related hospital visits than patients with asthma or COPD (mean outpatient/inpatient visits per patient post-index: 9.1/1.9 [ACO cohort] vs 5.7/1.4 [asthma cohort] and 6.4/1.7 [COPD cohort]). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with ACO in Taiwan experience a greater disease burden with greater healthcare resource utilisation, and higher costs, than patients with asthma or COPD alone.

Health care burden and treatment patterns in commercially insured children with chronic idiopathic/spontaneous urticaria: A real-world study in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Chronic idiopathic urticaria (CIU)/spontaneous urticaria (CSU) is defined by the presence of wheals, angioedema, or both for ≥6 weeks, with or without an identifiable trigger. Real-world health care data among children with CIU/CSU remain scarce. OBJECTIVES: To describe treatment patterns, health care resource utilization (HRU), and costs in pediatric patients with CIU/CSU (<12 years old) and to compare these with pediatric patients without CIU/CSU. METHODS: A commercial administrative claims data base (September 2013 to June 2016) was used. The CIU/CSU cohort included pediatric patients with either two or more claims for a diagnosis of urticaria ≥6 weeks apart or one or more claims for a diagnosis of urticaria and one or more claims for a diagnosis of angioedema ≥6 weeks apart (index was defined as the first claim). The control cohort comprised pediatric patients without urticaria or angioedema (index randomly assigned). Patients with <6 months of eligibility before and after the index date were excluded. HRU and costs were compared between the cohorts during the observation period after propensity score matching. RESULTS: A total of 6109 pediatric patients with CIU/CSU were selected, and 6107 were 1:1 matched with controls. The patients with CIU/CSU who had a mean ± standard deviation age of 4.58 ± 3.36 years, and 47.9% were girls. CIU/CSU-related medication use increased after diagnosis (e.g., baseline versus 6-month follow-up, 2.2 versus 8.0% for nonsedating prescription H1 antihistamines; 7.4 versus 17.4% for oral corticosteroids). Relative to the controls, the patients with CIU/CSU had higher rates of HRU (incidence rate ratios of 1.71, 2.39, and 2.07 for inpatient, emergency department, and outpatient visits, respectively; all p < 0.01), and higher all-cause per patient per year costs (mean cost differences of $2090, $1606, and $483 for total, medical, and pharmacy costs, respectively; all p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: This study highlighted unmet needs in pediatric patients with CIU/CSU who had increased medication (e.g., oral corticosteroids) and HRU burden after a diagnosis for CIU/CSU, and higher rates of HRU and costs relative to those without CIU/CSU.

A randomised controlled trial of the clinical and cost-effectiveness of ultrasound-guided intra-articular corticosteroid and local anaesthetic injections: the hip injection trial (HIT) protocol.

BACKGROUND: Evidence on the effectiveness of intra-articular corticosteroid injection for hip osteoarthritis is limited and conflicting. The primary objective of the Hip Injection Trial (HIT) is to compare pain intensity over 6 months, in people with hip OA between those receiving an ultrasound-guided intra-articular hip injection of corticosteroid with 1% lidocaine hydrochloride plus best current treatment with those receiving best current treatment alone. Secondary objectives are to determine specified comparative clinical and cost-effectiveness outcomes, and to explore, in a linked qualitative study, the lived experiences of patients with hip OA and experiences and impact of, ultrasound-guided intra-articular hip injection. METHODS: The HIT trial is a pragmatic, three-parallel group, single-blind, superiority, randomised controlled trial in patients with painful hip OA with a linked qualitative study. The current protocol is described, in addition to details and rationale for amendments since trial registration. 204 patients with moderate-to-severe hip OA will be recruited. Participants are randomised on an equal basis (1:1:1 ratio) to one of three interventions: (1) best current treatment, (2) best current treatment plus ultrasound-guided intra-articular hip injection of corticosteroid (triamcinolone acetonide 40 mg) with 1% lidocaine hydrochloride, or (3) best current treatment plus an ultrasound-guided intra-articular hip injection of 1% lidocaine hydrochloride alone. The primary endpoint is patient-reported hip pain intensity across 2 weeks, 2 months, 4 months and 6 months post-randomisation. Recruitment is over 29 months with a 6-month follow-up period. To address the primary objective, the analysis will compare participants' 'average' follow-up pain NRS scores, based on a random effects linear repeated-measures model. Data on adverse events are collected and reported in accordance with national guidance and reviewed by external monitoring committees. Individual semi-structured interviews are being conducted with up to 30 trial participants across all three arms of the trial. DISCUSSION: To ensure healthcare services improve outcomes for patients, we need to ensure there is a robust and appropriate evidence-base to support clinical decision making. The HIT trial will answer important questions regarding the clinical and cost-effectiveness of intra-articular corticosteroid injections. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN: 50550256 , 28th July 2015.