Healthcare resources and costs associated with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation in Spain: apixaban versus acenocoumarol.

Aim: Healthcare resources usage and costs associated to nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) were analyzed in Spain. Methods: This is an observational and retrospective study on patients with NVAF who started their treatment with apixaban or acenocoumarol between 1 January 2015 and 31 December 2017. Results: 2160 patients treated with apixaban were paired (1:1) with patients treated with acenocoumarol (propensity score matching). Apixaban reduced the incidence of strokes and systemic embolisms, minor and major bleedings and deaths, versus acenocoumarol. Apixaban led to reductions of 80, 55 and 43% in costs related to nursing visits, hospitalizations, and emergency visits, respectively, leading to annual cost savings of €274/patient, from the perspective of society. Conclusion: Our results suggested that apixaban is a cost-effective alternative for patients with NVAF.

Treatment profiles and costs of patients with chronic pain in the population setting.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to gather information about analgesic drug therapy in patients with chronic pain and perform cost estimates to guide future cost-effectiveness research in the area. METHODS: Data from patients aged 44 years and over suffering from any chronic condition and receiving regular analgesic drug therapy (for ≥6 months) who attended health care facilities within the area of Badalona during 2008 were collected in a retrospective study. Morbidity profiles were defined according to treatment setting (pain unit, hospital), World Health Organization analgesic step (1-2 versus 3), and a raw cost model based on resource use and work absenteeism was applied. Patients attending the pain unit or the hospital were considered undertreated if they were on step 1-2 analgesics. Multiple regression was used to compare costs between undertreated and non-undertreated patients among those attending the pain unit or the hospital. RESULTS: Only 410 of 18,157 patients ascertained (2.3%) were on step 3 analgesics. Their direct costs were greater than those of patients on step 1-2 analgesics, although the opposite was true regarding indirect costs. Of patients seen in the pain unit and in the hospital, 2.3% and 20.1%, respectively, were considered undertreated. Regression analyses revealed even greater costs in the subgroup of undertreated patients. CONCLUSION: Step 3 analgesics are barely used. Up to one-fifth of patients may be undertreated, generating greater costs than those considered to be properly treated. Regression analyses did not clarify the proportion of their cost excess that was attributable to undertreatment.

[Influence of substitution of brand name for generic drugs on therapeutic compliance in hypertension and dyslipidemia]. / Influencia de la sustitución de medicamentos de marca por genéricos en el cumplimiento terapéutico de la hipertensión arterial y la dislipidemia.

OBJECTIVE: To determine therapeutic compliance when brand name amlodipine and simvastatin are substituted for generic drugs, and to determine patients' and physicians' opinions of this substitution. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed an observational study with a control group, based on a review of the medical records in six primary care centers. Participants consisted of patients ≥ 40 years old initiating treatment with a brand name drug (initial period), which was later substituted by a generic drug (final period). The study subgroups consisted of patients with hypertension (amlodipine) or dyslipidemia (simvastatin). The main measures were comorbidity, compliance, treatment length, biochemistry determinations, and patients' and physicians' opinions (interviews). All patients received a brand name drug for a minimum of 1 year followed by a generic drug for a minimum of 1 year (minimum continuation/patient: 24 months). RESULTS: There were 1,252 patients (groups: 49.5% amlodipine; 50.5% simvastatin). Patients treated with amlodipine (period comparison) showed better compliance (65.8 vs. 61.3%; p=0.037) and blood pressure control (48.5 vs. 45.8%; p=0.039) with the brand name drug. The percentages with simvastatin were 62.8 vs. 58.4% (p=0.041), respectively. A total of 73.6% of the physicians interviewed prescribed generic drugs and 59.2% believed that both types of drug had the same efficacy. Most of the patients interviewed (79.8%; CI: 74.3-85.3%) accepted the substitution; 55.3% (CI: 48.5-62.1%) received the appropriate information but 61.5% were confused by the different products. Lack of compliance was reported by 18.2%. CONCLUSIONS: In patients receiving amlodipine or simvastatin, compliance decreased with time, independently of the change from a band name to a generic drug.