Patterns of care and burden of chronic idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura in Brazil.

AIMS: Although several therapeutic options are available for chronic immune thrombocytopenic purpura (cITP), little is known about the treatment of cITP in Brazil. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A multi-center, retrospective chart review, observational study was designed to describe the treatment patterns, clinical burden, resources use, and associated costs for adult patients diagnosed with cITP and treated in public and private institutions in Brazil. Patient charts were screened in reverse chronological order based on their last visit post January 1, 2012. (All costs were calculated using 1.00 USD = 3.9571 BRL, from February 2016.) Results: Of 340 patient charts screened, 50 patients were eligible for inclusion in the study. Single-drug therapy (prednisone, dexamethasone, or dapsone) was the most commonly used treatment, followed by combination therapies (azathioprine + prednisone, azathioprine + prednisone + danazol, and prednisone + dapsone). Splenectomy was performed in 22% of patients after at least first-line treatment. Platelet count and number of bleeding episodes at diagnosis were 31,561.1/mm3 (SD = ±26,396.1) and 40 episodes, respectively; in first-line, 92,631.1/mm3 (SD = ±79,955.3) and 19 episodes, respectively; in second-line, 96,950.0/mm3 (SD = ±76,476.4) and 17 episodes, respectively. Private system patients had a higher median cost compared to public system patients (USD 17.49/month, range = 0-2,020.77 vs USD 9.51/month, range = 0-192.64, respectively). LIMITATIONS: This study does not allow conclusions for causal explanations due to the cohort study design, and treatment patterns represent only the practices of physicians who have agreed to participate in the study. CONCLUSIONS: The data indicate that available therapeutic strategies for second- and third-line therapies appear to be limited.

Economics in sample size determination for clinical trials.

In the design of clinical trials, sample size determination is usually undertaken by statisticians and clinicians. It is rare for health economists to be involved in this aspect of trial design. However, there are a number of outcome changes that are of 'economic significance', and it is important for trial designers and funders to be aware of these before planning, funding and mounting a trial. In this paper we demonstrate through the use of three examples (prevention of osteoporosis, management of infertility, and endometriosis) how economics can be used to influence the size of a clinical trial. Trials that are too small or too large waste research resources; health economics can lead to more efficient trial designs.

Hysterectomy vs. resectoscopic endometrial ablation for the control of abnormal uterine bleeding. A cost-comparative study.

This study compared the costs of endometrial ablation using the uterine resectoscope to those of hysterectomy in a group of patients treated for abnormal uterine bleeding who were enrolled in a national managed health care organization. The cost of endometrial ablation during the periprocedural period was significantly lower than that of hysterectomy, with much of the difference coming from the hospitalization required for the latter procedure. The postprocedural cost for ablation was higher than for hysterectomy owing to the need for second ablations or hysterectomy in 13 of the 85 ablation patients. Preprocedure costs were not different between ablation and hysterectomy. A reanalysis of the data, however, that excluded patients who required a second ablation or hysterectomy suggested that these additional procedures were responsible for the higher postprocedural costs in the ablation group. Resectoscopic endometrial ablation for the treatment of abnormal uterine bleeding resulted in lower periprocedure costs and lower overall treatment costs to the health plan in the groups studied as compared with hysterectomy. Greater familiarity with the technique of resectoscopic endometrial ablation, improved patient selection for the procedure and the use of appropriate pharmacotherapy for suppressing endometrial growth prior to ablation probably substantially improve the rate of success, reduce postprocedural costs and further enhance the cost advantage of this procedure.

A randomised controlled trial of microwave endometrial ablation without endometrial preparation in the outpatient setting: patient acceptability, treatment outcome and costs.

OBJECTIVE: To compare outpatient microwave endometrial ablation (MEA) in the postmenstrual phase to standard MEA treatment after drug preparation in a day case theatre environment. DESIGN: A randomised controlled trial. SETTING: A large United Kingdom teaching hospital. POPULATION: Two hundred and ten women complaining of excessive menstrual loss. METHODS: Two hundred and ten women with excessive menstrual loss were randomised. Ninety-seven women were treated as outpatients in the immediate post-menstrual phase and 100 were treated in an operating theatre after hormonal preparation. All procedures were commenced under local anaesthesia with or without conscious sedation. Analysis was by modified intention to treat. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome measures were satisfaction with treatment (measured at one year) and acceptability of treatment (measured at two weeks). Secondary outcome measures were menstrual outcome and financial cost. RESULTS: Significantly more women found treatment post-menses acceptable; 86 (89.5%) versus 76 (76.0%) [difference in proportions 13.6%, 95% CI (3.0%, 23.9%)]. Similar numbers in each arm were totally or generally satisfied with the treatment, 86 (92.5%) versus 84 (88.4%) [difference in proportions 4.1%, 95% CI (-4.7%, 12.9%)] while amenorrhoea rates at one year were comparable, 52 (55.9%) versus 60 (61.9%). [difference in proportions -5.9%, 95% CI (-19.8%, 7.6%)]. The mean health service costs were 124 pounds (95% CI 86-194 pounds) lower for the patients in the post-menses group. CONCLUSION: MEA performed under local anaesthesia (with or without conscious sedation) in the post-menstrual phase achieves high levels of satisfaction is very acceptable to patients and results in significantly reduced health service costs. Importantly menstrual outcomes are not affected by omission of drug preparation. There is now good evidence to support the use of MEA, without drug endometrial preparation, in the outpatient setting.

A cost effectiveness analysis of goserelin compared with danazol as endometrial thinning agents.

OBJECTIVE: To analyse the cost, effectiveness and cost effectiveness of two endometrial thinning agents prior to laser ablation for dysfunctional uterine bleeding: danazol and goserelin. SETTING: A district general hospital. DESIGN: A retrospective cost effectiveness analysis, from the perspective of the health service, based on data from an open, randomised, parallel group comparative study of 160 pre-menopausal women with dysfunctional uterine bleeding. METHODS: Within the trial, length of operation and duration of hospital stay was recorded for each woman. Resource use due to complications of surgery and adverse drug events was evaluated by one of the authors (R.G.). Additional surgery after completion of the study was collected using a postal questionnaire which was distributed to every woman who had undergone surgery. Resource use was costed using detailed unit costs from a specific NHS trust and from published sources. A cost effectiveness analysis was undertaken relating differential cost to differential rates of amenorrhoea at women's last point of follow up. RESULTS: Information on amenorrhoea was available from 138 women, of whom 111 had completed the questionnaire to indicate longer term follow up. Women who did not complete the clinical trial were not included in this economic evaluation. On average, women randomised to goserelin spent less time in theatre and on the ward. Based on longer term follow up, rates of retreatment were similar in the two groups. The mean (SD) health service cost of women in the goserelin group was pound sterling 323.84 (pound sterling 309.94), compared with pound sterling 243.45 (pound sterling 265.23) in the danazol group; median (range) costs were pound sterling 220.29 (pound sterling 191-pound sterling 2127) and pound sterling 159.76 (pound sterling 140-pound sterling 1426) in the two groups, respectively. These costs were significantly higher for goserelin (P = 0.0001). The goserelin group also had a higher rate of amenorrhoea (38.8% vs 28.6%, P = 0.23). Based on mean differences in cost, the incremental cost of goserelin per additional woman with amenorrhoea was pound sterling 788; based on median differences in cost the ratio was pound sterling 590. CONCLUSIONS: The shorter duration in theatre and stay in hospital provided a modest offset of the higher acquisition cost of goserelin, but the overall cost of management remained significantly higher than managing women with danazol. The rates of amenorrhoea indicated that goserelin was more effective at 24 weeks and approximately two years after surgery, although statistical significance was only achieved at 24 weeks. The economic impact of women withdrawn from treatment was not considered, but sensitivity analysis indicates that these women may have had a large effect on the overall result of this study. Purchasers will need to decide whether the additional cost of management with goserelin is justified by the increased rates of amenorrhoea and the reduced withdrawals from treatment.