An observational time and motion study of denosumab subcutaneous injection and zoledronic acid intravenous infusion in patients with metastatic bone disease: results from three European countries.

PURPOSE: Denosumab (administered via subcutaneous injection) demonstrated superior efficacy versus the intravenously administered zoledronic acid in the prevention of skeletal-related events in an integrated analysis of three head-to-head phase III trials in patients with bone metastases secondary to solid tumors. To date, no studies have evaluated treatment administration duration endpoints of these two agents. METHODS: A multinational, multi-site, observational time and motion study conducted in 10 day oncology units (DOUs) across Belgium, Germany, and Italy. Observations of process time included task time and active healthcare professional (HCP) time for pre-defined tasks. Patient time measurements included entering/exiting the DOU, treatment room, and treatment chair or examination table. RESULTS: A total of 189 patients were enrolled (82 received zoledronic acid and 107 received denosumab) and 238 observations were recorded (104 for zoledronic acid and 134 for denosumab). Mean total task time was reduced by 81% when denosumab was used versus zoledronic acid (8.4 versus 44.2 min; p < 0.0001; pooled analysis across all countries). Pooled estimates for active HCP time were 12.2 min for zoledronic acid and 6.9 min for denosumab (44% reduction; p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: In the countries studied, using denosumab compared with zoledronic acid reduced total task time and active HCP time. Thus, HCPs have more time to dedicate to other patients or care activities. An ability to increase the volume of appointments within DOUs could reduce waiting lists in sites operating at full capacity and increase overall productivity and efficiency in hospital processes.

Time Savings with Once-Monthly C.E.R.A.: A Time and Motion Study Conducted in 13 Haemodialysis Centres in Italy.

BACKGROUND: We sought to document the time required by health care professionals to administer erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) and continuous erythropoiesis receptor activator (C.E.R.A.) in the management of renal anaemia. METHODS: A Time and Motion study was conducted in 13 centres in Italy. The time spent on preparation, distribution, and injection for both ESA and C.E.R.A. groups was measured. A multilevel model was run to account for the centre-clustering effect. RESULTS: The average number of ESA injections/patient/year was 89. The average uptake of C.E.R.A. was 26%. The average time per session was 1.54 min for ESA (95% CI 1.21-1.86) vs. 1.64 min for C.E.R.A. (95% CI 1.31-1.97). Estimated time/patient/year was 137 min for ESA and 20 min for C.E.R.A. Assuming a 100% uptake of C.E.R.A., annual time savings/centre would be 84% (194 h). CONCLUSIONS: Substantial annual time savings on frequent anaemia management-related tasks were found when a switchover was made from ESAs to C.E.R.A.

Quantifying the administration and monitoring time burden of several disease-modifying therapies for relapsing multiple sclerosis in the United Kingdom: A time and motion study.

BACKGROUND: The treatment landscape for relapsing multiple sclerosis (MS) has changed dramatically in recent decades, including an increasing number of high-efficacy disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) with varied administration and monitoring requirements. Coupled with greater focus on earlier treatment, these factors have resulted in stretching of the capacity of MS specialist services and allied healthcare professionals (HCPs). To assist with the effective planning of MS services in the UK NHS, this study quantified the administration and monitoring time burden associated with high-efficacy DMTs (alemtuzumab, cladribine tablets, fingolimod, natalizumab, and ocrelizumab) for relapsing MS. METHODS: A Time and Motion (T&M) study was conducted across four MS centres in the UK, over 3-4 months per centre (Aug 2019-Feb 2021). Time dedicated by HCPs (including but not limited to neurologists, MS specialist nurses, infusion nurses, and healthcare assistants) to pre-specified drug administration and monitoring activities, elicited during pre-study interviews at each centre, was assessed for each of the selected DMTs. Administration activities included: installing peripheral access; pre-medication administration (if needed); preparing drug for infusion; infusion initiation, monitoring, and disconnection; and patient monitoring post-infusion. Monitoring activities included: booking appointments for blood draws; blood draw; retrieval and review of blood results; maintaining blood records and follow-up with the patient; checking availability of MRI results and follow-up with the patient; booking appointments for neurologist or nurse consultations; and checking patient files prior to clinic visits. A T&M model was built using observational T&M study results, data obtained through pre-study interviews, as well as stipulated monitoring intervals from relevant Summaries of Product Characteristics for the selected DMTs, to estimate active HCP time with each DMT, extrapolated over a period of 4 years per-patient. RESULTS: For oral DMTs, projected total active HCP time (monitoring only) per-patient over 4 years was 14.7 h for cladribine tablets and 19.2 h for fingolimod. For infused DMTs, total time (administration and monitoring) for alemtuzumab was 37.7 h (6.0 and 31.6 h, respectively), 48.1 h for natalizumab (17.4 and 30.8 h, respectively), and 23.5 h for ocrelizumab (6.1 and 17.4 h, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: While active HCP time varied across centres, infused DMTs were projected to require the greatest amount of HCP time associated with administration and monitoring over 4 years versus oral DMTs. These findings may assist MS-specific HCPs in planning and delivering the equitable provision of DMT services for patients with relapsing MS.

A US Time and Motion Pilot Study of Nebulized COPD Therapy in an Inpatient and a Long-Term Care Setting.

INTRODUCTION: There is a lack of quantitative data on healthcare professionals' (HCPs) time dedicated to nebulized chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) therapy in inpatient and long-term care (LTC) settings. Using time and motion methodology, we quantified HCP time and opportunity costs (time and materials) associated with nebulized COPD therapy in inpatient and LTC settings and estimated efficiencies of changing to once-daily therapy. METHODS: A case report form was built to reflect local nebulization workflow. Primary outcomes were mean active HCP time per predefined task and mean total active HCP time associated with short-acting beta agonist (SABA) and SABA/short-acting muscarinic antagonist (SAMA) combination nebulization processes. RESULTS: Twenty observations occurred within each setting. Inpatient observations included three SABA and 17 SABA/SAMA (from 18 different patients), and LTC observations included five SABA and 15 SABA/SAMA (from eight different patients). Mean total process time was 16.12 min in the inpatient setting (95% CI 14.48-17.76) and 21.0 min in the LTC setting (95% CI 18.8-23.2), with the actual nebulization comprising over 50% of process time for both. In LTC, CIs suggest a difference by cognitive impairment status: mean 24.1 min (95% CI 21.3-26.9) if cognitively impaired versus 19.0 min (95% CI 16.1-21.8) if not. In the inpatient setting, the estimated process time/admission was 7.8 h; a once-daily nebulized drug would require only 2.3 h. In LTC, the estimated process time was 32.1 h/month; a once-daily nebulized drug would require only 13.7 h/month. Estimated nebulization cost was $243/admission for current versus $72 for once-daily dosing in inpatient, and $1177/month versus $504 in LTC. CONCLUSIONS: The nebulization process for COPD patients in both inpatient and LTC settings consumes considerable HCP time. A switch from SABA or SABA/SAMA to a drug with a once-daily nebulization frequency could generate substantial time savings depending on the setting and site characteristics.

Results of a Time and Motion Survey Regarding Subcutaneous versus Intravenous Administration of Daratumumab in Patients with Relapsed or Refractory Multiple Myeloma.

PURPOSE: Daratumumab (DARA) is a humanized anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody and approved as monotherapy or in combination with standard of care regimens for the treatment of multiple myeloma (MM). DARA intravenous (IV) administration is time-consuming; availability of DARA subcutaneous (SC) is expected to reduce this burden. A time and motion survey was undertaken to elicit healthcare providers' (HCPs') understanding of the workflow and time estimates for administration of DARA IV and SC (beyond treatment time) in patients with relapsed/refractory MM. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This web-based, prospective survey collected data from HCPs at sites that actively enrolled patients in the phase 3 COLUMBA trial, a multicenter, noninferiority study of DARA IV versus DARA SC. Data collection included time actively spent on pre-specified drug preparation and drug administration/patient care activities; active HCP and chair time were extrapolated for first and subsequent treatments. RESULTS: Compared with DARA IV, DARA SC reduced median total active HCP time by 63.8% (from 265.9 to 96.3 minutes) and 49.5% (from 179.2 to 90.4 minutes) for first and subsequent treatments, respectively. When extrapolated to the anticipated number of treatments per year (23 in Year 1 and 13 in Year 2, per label), estimated active HCP time per patient was reduced by 50% in Years 1 (from 70.1 to 34.8 hours) and 2 (from 38.8 to 19.6 hours) for DARA SC versus DARA IV. Estimated chair time for DARA SC was decreased by 97% versus DARA IV for first (from 456.9 to 13.3 minutes) and subsequent treatments (from 238.0 to 8.1 minutes). CONCLUSION: These results suggest that DARA SC is associated with less active HCP involvement during drug preparation and drug administration/patient care compared with DARA IV, potentially reducing burdens on patients and caregivers and creating efficiencies for HCPs and healthcare facilities, allowing more patients access to care.

Cost-effectiveness of linezolid versus vancomycin for hospitalised patients with complicated skin and soft-tissue infections in Germany.

This study used a decision analytic model approach to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of linezolid versus vancomycin in the empirical treatment of complicated skin and soft-tissue infection (cSSTI) due to suspected methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) from the German hospital and health care system perspective. Clinical probabilities were obtained from trial data, resource utilisation and MRSA prevalence rates were obtained through German physician interviews, and costs from published sources were applied to resource units. Outcomes included total cost/patient and cure. The estimated first-line cure rate for linezolid-treated patients was 90.1% versus 85.5% for vancomycin; total cure rates after two lines of treatment were 98.4% and 98.1%, respectively. Average total cost/episode was 8,232 euro for linezolid versus 9,206 euro for vancomycin. The model outcomes were sensitive to changes in length of stay (LOS), isolation days, rate of confirmed MRSA and price of linezolid. Linezolid was expected to result in a shorter intravenous treatment duration and shorter LOS that offset its higher acquisition cost versus vancomycin in cSSTI in Germany.

Healthcare resource utilization for anemia management: current practice with erythropoiesis-stimulating agents and the impact of converting to once-monthly C.E.R.A.

UNLABELLED: Background andMethods: A prospective, observational study in 12 German and UK dialysis centers which quantified personnel time for anemia treatment using erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs). Tasks directly observable were measured through the time-and-motion method; time for non-observable tasks was estimated by healthcare staff. Using activity-based costing methods, time was converted into monetary units. Modeling was used to estimate potential time and cost savings using once-monthly C.E.R.A., a continuous erythropoietin receptor activator. RESULTS: For current ESAs in Germany and the UK, respectively: mean observed time was 1.67 and 2.67 min/patient/administration, corresponding to 31 and 42 days/year/center/100 patients; mean total time/center/100 patients/year was estimated at 79 and 95 days, equivalent to EUR 17,031 and GBP 18,739. Assuming 100% once-monthly C.E.R.A. uptake, the observed time/patient/year may decrease by 79 and 84% in Germany and the UK, respectively, compared with traditional ESAs. CONCLUSION: Conversion to once-monthly C.E.R.A. may offer the potential to reduce time spent on ESA administration in hemodialysis centers.

Costs of managing anemia with erythropoiesis-stimulating agents during hemodialysis: a time and motion study.

Use of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) presents a significant time and cost burden in the management of anemia of chronic kidney disease (CKD). We conducted a prospective, observational, activity-based costing study to estimate the health care personnel time and resulting direct medical costs associated with administering epoetin 3 times weekly to patients with end-stage renal disease on dialysis. The study was conducted at 5 US hemodialysis centers. The personnel time and costs were derived from time and motion observations. Predicted time and cost savings were modeled for switching patients to once-monthly ESA therapy. Patients also completed a survey questionnaire to assess their level of CKD knowledge and information needs. Total per-patient-per-year (PPPY) time expended on anemia management with epoetin averaged 608 minutes (range 512-915 minutes), with an average PPPY cost of $548 (range $342-$651). Use of a once-monthly ESA, compared with epoetin, could decrease average PPPY time expenditure by 79% (127 minutes [range 96-173 minutes]) and reduce PPPY costs by 81% ($104 [range $79-$136]). The patient questionnaire reported insufficient education on CKD. Use of a once-monthly ESA to correct anemia in dialysis patients may provide substantial time, resource, and cost savings compared with current treatment practices.

Evaluating preference weights for the Asthma Symptom Utility Index (ASUI) across countries.

BACKGROUND: The Asthma Symptom Utility Index (ASUI) is a preference-based outcome measure used in US clinical trials and cost-effectiveness studies for asthma. This study evaluated ASUI preference weights in Europe to determine whether the multi-attribute utility function, based on preferences from a US population, is generalizable across countries. METHODS: Data were collected from ninety asthma patients from Italy, France, and the United Kingdom using the Asthma Control Questionnaire, the Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire, and the ASUI. Subjects rated their preferences for 10 asthma health states using a visual analogue scale (VAS) and a standard gamble (SG) interview. RESULTS: All multi-symptom states showed statistically significant differences (p < 0.001) between countries in mean VAS scores. Mean SG utility scores between the US and France and the US and Italy demonstrated statistically significant differences (p < 0.001) for three states: severe wheeze; moderate cough and wheeze; and moderate cough and dyspnea. Because of these differences, the multi-attribute utility functions derived within countries were somewhat different. Despite these differences, country-specific algorithms captured a similar rank ordering of patients by disease severity, were strongly correlated (r = 0.971 to 0.995), and demonstrated similar relationships with symptom and AQLQ scores. CONCLUSION: Results of this study suggest that the ASUI may be a complementary patient-reported outcome for clinical studies and may be useful for applications in cost-effectiveness studies comparing different asthma treatments.

A time and motion study of subcutaneous versus intravenous trastuzumab in patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer.

Within PrefHer (NCT01401166), patients and healthcare professionals (HCPs) preferred subcutaneous (SC) over intravenous (IV) trastuzumab. We undertook a prospective, observational time and motion study to quantify patients' time in infusion chairs and active HCP time in PrefHer. Patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer received four adjuvant cycles of SC trastuzumab (600 mg fixed dose via SC single-use injection device [SID, Cohort 1] or SC handheld syringe [HHS, Cohort 2]) then four cycles of standard IV trastuzumab or the reverse sequence. Generic case report forms for IV and SC management, both in the treatment room and the drug preparation area, were tailored to reflect center practices. Patient chair time and active HCP time were recorded. We compared pooled Cohort 1 + 2 IV with Cohort 1 SC SID and Cohort 2 SC HHS mean times across eight countries and individually within them utilizing a random intercept generalized linear mixed-effects model. Per session, the SC SID saved a mean of 57 min of patient chair time versus IV (range across countries: 47-86; P < 0.0001); the SC HHS saved 55 min (40-81; P < 0.0001). Active HCP time was reduced by a mean of 13 min per session with the SC SID (range across countries: 4-16; P < 0.0001) and 17 min with the SC HHS (5-28; P < 0.0001) versus IV. SC trastuzumab, delivered via SID or HHS, saved patient chair and active HCP times versus IV infusion, supporting a transition to either SC method.

Time Savings with Rituximab Subcutaneous Injection versus Rituximab Intravenous Infusion: A Time and Motion Study in Eight Countries.

BACKGROUND: Rituximab is a standard treatment for non-Hodgkin lymphoma. The SABRINA trial (NCT01200758) showed that a subcutaneous (SC) rituximab formulation did not compromise efficacy or safety compared with intravenous (IV) infusion. We aimed to quantify active healthcare professional (HCP) time and patient chair time for rituximab SC and IV, including potential time savings. METHODS: This non-interventional time and motion study was run in eight countries and 30 day oncology units. Rituximab SC data were collected alongside the MabCute trial (NCT01461928); IV data were collected per routine real-world practice. Trained observers recorded active HCP time for pre-specified tasks (stopwatch) and chair time (time of day). A random intercept model was used to analyze active HCP time (by task and for all tasks combined) in the treatment room and drug preparation area, drug administration duration, chair time and patient treatment room time by country and/or across countries. Active HCP and chair time were extrapolated to a patient's first year of treatment (11 rituximab sessions). RESULTS: Mean active HCP time was 35.0 and 23.7 minutes for IV and SC process, respectively (-32%, p <0.0001). By country, relative reduction in time was 27-58%. Absolute reduction in extrapolated active HCP time (first year of treatment) was 1.1-5.2 hours. Mean chair time was 262.1 minutes for IV, including 180.9 minutes infusion duration, vs. 67.3 minutes for SC, including 8.3 minutes SC injection administration (-74%, p <0.0001). By country, relative reduction was 53-91%. Absolute reduction in extrapolated chair time for the first year of treatment was 3.1-5.5 eight-hour days. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with rituximab IV, rituximab SC was associated with reduced chair time and active HCP time. The latter could be invested in other activities, whereas the former may lead to more available appointments, reducing waiting lists and increasing the efficiency of day oncology units. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01200758.

Cost-effectiveness of oral ibandronate versus IV zoledronic acid or IV pamidronate for bone metastases in patients receiving oral hormonal therapy for breast cancer in the United Kingdom.

BACKGROUND: Oral ibandronate is a single-nitrogen bisphosphonate whose efficacy is similar to that of IV ibandronate for the treatment of bone metastases. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the cost-effectiveness of oral ibandronate with zoledronic acid and generic pamidronate (both administered by IV) for the treatment of bone metastases in patients with breast cancer receiving oral hormonal therapy in the United Kingdom. METHODS: A global economic model was adapted to the UK National Health Service. Patients were assumed to receive oral hormonal therapy for 50% of their projected 14.3-month survival. The primary outcome was incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Bisphosphonate efficacy data for relative risk reduction of skeletal-related events (SREs) were obtained from clinical trials. Resource use data and costs associated with IV bisphosphonate infusions were derived from published studies and a unit cost database; monthly drug acquisition costs were obtained from the British National Formulary. Utility scores were applied to time with or without an SRE to adjust survival for quality of life. Therefore, differences in QALYs were driven by utility weights rather than survival time. Model design and inputs were validated through expert UK clinician review. The absence of comparative efficacy and safety data from clinical trials for the different bisphosphonates was a model limitation that we addressed by supporting our assumptions with UK expert clinician opinion and with expert clinician opinion outside of the United Kingdom, and by conducting sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: The projected total cost per patient was pound307 less with oral ibandronate compared with zoledronic acid, and pound158 less compared with the use of generic pamidronate (due to a reduction in staff time for infusions, avoidance of renal safety monitoring visits, and, in the case of IV generic pamidronate, a reduction in the number of SREs). Oral ibandronate was estimated to lead to a gain of 0.02 QALY, making it the economically dominant treatment option. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we found that oral ibandronate was cost-effective for the management of bone metastases from breast cancer among patients receiving oral hormonal therapy in the United Kingdom. Oral ibandronate provided effective SRE and bone-pain management while avoiding resource use and costs associated with regular IV bisphosphonate infusions. Due to uncertainty surrounding the model assumptions, it would be valuable to repeat the analyses using data from comparative bisphosphonate trials, once they become available.

A budget impact model for paclitaxel-eluting stent in femoropopliteal disease in France.

PURPOSE: The Zilver PTX drug-eluting stent (Cook Ireland Ltd., Limerick, Ireland) represents an advance in endovascular treatments for atherosclerotic superficial femoral artery (SFA) disease. Clinical data demonstrate improved clinical outcomes compared to bare-metal stents (BMS). This analysis assessed the likely impact on the French public health care budget of introducing reimbursement for the Zilver PTX stent. METHODS: A model was developed in Microsoft Excel to estimate the impact of a progressive transition from BMS to Zilver PTX over a 5-year horizon. The number of patients undergoing SFA stenting was estimated on the basis of hospital episode data. The analysis from the payer perspective used French reimbursement tariffs. Target lesion revascularization (TLR) after primary stent placement was the primary outcome. TLR rates were based on 2-year data from the Zilver PTX single-arm study (6 and 9 %) and BMS rates reported in the literature (average 16 and 22 %) and extrapolated to 5 years. Net budget impact was expressed as the difference in total costs (primary stenting and reinterventions) for a scenario where BMS is progressively replaced by Zilver PTX compared to a scenario of BMS only. RESULTS: The model estimated a net cumulative 5-year budget reduction of 6,807,202 for a projected population of 82,316 patients (21,361 receiving Zilver PTX). Base case results were confirmed in sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSION: Adoption of Zilver PTX could lead to important savings for the French public health care payer. Despite higher initial reimbursement for the Zilver PTX stent, fewer expected SFA reinterventions after the primary stenting procedure result in net savings.

Time savings associated with C.E.R.A. once monthly: a time-and-motion study in hemodialysis centers in five European countries.

OBJECTIVE: This time-and-motion study aimed to quantify healthcare personnel time associated with routine anemia-management tasks for maintenance therapy with C.E.R.A. (continuous erythropoietin receptor activator) that treats anemia with once-monthly injections versus other erythropoiesis-stimulating agents ('Other ESAs'), including shorter-acting ESAs (epoetin alfa, epeotin beta) and darbepoetin alfa. METHODS AND DESIGN: This was a non-interventional, observational study where patients were treated for anemia according to individual center practices. Time taken to complete frequent anemia-management tasks for both groups (C.E.R.A. vs. 'Other ESAs') was recorded and potential annual time savings per patient and per center following assumed 100% uptake of C.E.R.A. once monthly were estimated. RESULTS: For 'Other ESAs', the average total time spent per patient per year on frequent anemia management-related tasks ranged from 48 minutes in Spain to 265 minutes in Poland. For C.E.R.A. once monthly, the average total time spent per patient per year ranged from 12 minutes in Spain to 39 minutes in Poland, a reduction in actual time spent of 76-89% versus 'Other ESAs'. 100% adoption of C.E.R.A. once monthly may result in average annual time savings of 26-553 hours, a reduction of 67-95% depending on center size and frequency distribution of 'Other ESAs'. LIMITATIONS: Due to variability in treatment practices between centers (differences in task, description and frequency distribution of 'Other ESAs') and the small numbers of centers participating in each country, it is difficult to generalize annual per patient time results to reflect each country. Per center results should be interpreted with caution as they were derived based on specific center sizes that may not reflect typical center sizes in the country. CONCLUSIONS: Adoption of C.E.R.A. once monthly could offer substantial time savings on frequent anemia management-related tasks versus 'Other ESAs'; allowing re-allocation of scarce resources to other aspects of patient care.

Economic evaluation of duloxetine versus serotonin selective reuptake inhibitors and venlafaxine XR in treating major depressive disorder in Scotland.

BACKGROUND: Major depressive disorders (MDD) are responsible for substantial direct and indirect health care costs. Despite the availability of numerous treatments, the need for effective pharmacotherapy remains. Duloxetine is a relatively balanced serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI) with favourable clinical and tolerability profile. The cost-effectiveness of duloxetine versus established SSRIs, venlafaxine XR and mirtazapine was estimated in the UK. METHODS: A decision analysis simulating clinical management of MDD was developed to estimate health and economic impacts of alternative treatments over one year. Patients on treatment experience remission, response without remission, no response, relapse or discontinue the initial regimen. Model outcomes were total treatment costs and quality-adjusted life years. Resource utilization data were derived from literature and practising UK psychiatrists and GPs. The robustness of findings with respect to modelling assumptions was assessed in extensive sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: With similar efficacy to venlafaxine XR but lower drug costs, duloxetine is less costly and marginally more effective than venlafaxine XR both in the overall MDD population and in a more severe subgroup. Duloxetine has a low cost-effectiveness ratio in primary care against SSRIs and mirtazapine, and was found cost-saving against mirtazapine in more severe patients. LIMITATIONS: Cost-effectiveness results are sensitive to changes in efficacy parameters and resource use data were collected from physician panel. CONCLUSIONS: Duloxetine represents an important option in the treatment of MDD in the UK that can be recommended on economic grounds. With similar efficacy and different side-effect profile to venlafaxine XR it represents a valuable choice to MDD patients.

Hepatitis B management costs in France, Italy, Spain, and the United Kingdom.

GOALS: To estimate the costs associated with the management of chronic hepatitis B (CHB) and its sequelae in France, Italy, Spain, and the United Kingdom from the perspective of the healthcare payer. BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization estimates that the disease sequelae related to hepatitis B account for 1 million deaths annually worldwide. Northern Europe is a low endemic area, while Mediterranean regions are classified as intermediate endemic areas. The introduction of vaccination programs in France, Italy, and Spain in recent years has lowered the hepatitis B incidence rates. STUDY: The purpose of this study was to identify the medical management patterns of CHB patients in France, Italy, Spain, and the United Kingdom and estimate the economic burdens of CHB-related disease states for each country. A central questionnaire was used to collect data from specialist physicians in four countries, and responses were collated into management patterns for chronic active hepatitis, compensated and decompensated cirrhosis, and hepatocellular carcinoma. RESULTS: The average cost by disease state for each European country was found to increase across the identified disease states reflecting disease progression. Year-2001 average annual disease state costs per patient were estimated to be as follows: CHB, 1,093 euro-3,396 euro; compensated cirrhosis, 1,134 euro-3,997 euro; decompensated cirrhosis, 5,292 euro-8,842 euro; hepatocellular carcinoma, 3,731 euro-9,352 euro; and, from published sources, liver transplant surgery, 25,165 euro-84,568 euro. CONCLUSION: The cost of CHB is variable both within and between European countries. The association of disease progression with increased cost of disease management suggests that measures to prevent or delay its progression would be economically beneficial.