Impact of allergic rhinitis control on work productivity and costs: a real-world data MASK-air study.

BACKGROUND: Allergic rhinitis (AR) has a substantial socioeconomic impact associated with impaired work productivity. OBJECTIVE: To study the impact of AR on work productivity and estimate the corresponding indirect costs for 40 countries. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study using direct patient data from the MASK-air® app on users with self-reported AR. We used the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire: Allergy Specific to measure the impact of AR on work productivity (presenteeism and absenteeism). Weekly indirect costs were estimated per country, for each level of rhinitis control and considering patients with and without asthma. RESULTS: We assessed data from 677 weeks (364 patients), 280 of which were reported by patients with asthma. Regarding presenteeism, the median impact of AR in weeks of poor disease control was 60.7% (P25-P75=24.9-74.2%), while partial and good disease control were respectively associated with an impact of 25.0% (P25-P75=12.1-42.4%) and 4.4% (P25-75=0.8-12.9%). In poorly-controlled weeks, presenteeism was associated with indirect costs ranging from 65.7 US Dollars purchase power parity (US$ PPPs) (P25-P75=29.2-143.2) in Brazil to 693.6 US$ PPP (P25-P75=405.2-1094.9) in Iceland. Median absenteeism per week was of 0% for all levels of rhinitis control. Patients with AR+asthma showed higher overall work impairment than patients with AR alone, particularly in poorly-controlled weeks (median work impairment in AR alone=39.1% [P25-P75=12.5-71.9%]; median work impairment in AR+asthma=68.4% [P25-P75=54.6-80.2%]). CONCLUSION: Poor AR control was associated with decreased work productivity and increased indirect costs, particularly in patients with AR+asthma. The estimates from this study underpin the economic burden of AR.

The Atlantic divide in coronary heart disease: Epidemiology and patient care in the US and Portugal.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: We aimed to compare access to new health technologies to treat coronary heart disease (CHD) in the health systems of Portugal and the US, characterizing the needs of the populations and the resources available. METHODS: We reviewed data for 2000 and 2010 on epidemiologic profiles of CHD and on health care available to patients. Thirty health technologies (16 medical devices and 14 drugs) introduced during the period 1980-2015 were identified by interventional cardiologists. Approval and marketing dates were compared between countries. RESULTS: Relative to the US, Portugal has lower risk profiles and less than half the hospitalizations per capita, but fewer centers per capita provide catheterization and cardiothoracic surgery services. More than 70% of drugs were available sooner in the US, whereas 12 out of 16 medical devices were approved earlier in Portugal. Nevertheless, at least five of these devices were adopted first or diffused faster in the US. Mortality due to CHD and myocardial infarction (MI) was lower in Portugal (CHD: 72.8 vs. 168 and MI: 48.7 vs. 54.1 in Portugal and the US, respectively; age- and gender-adjusted deaths per 100000 population, 2010); but only CHD deaths exhibited a statistically significant difference between the countries. CONCLUSIONS: Differences in regulatory mechanisms and price regulations have a significant impact on the types of health technologies available in the two countries. However, other factors may influence their adoption and diffusion, and this appears to have a greater impact on mortality, due to acute conditions.