Economic evaluation of immunoglobulin replacement in patients with primary antibody deficiencies.

Lifelong immunoglobulin replacement is the standard, expensive therapy for severe primary antibody deficiencies. This treatment can be administrated either by intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) or subcutaneous infusions (SCIG) and delivered at home or in an out-patient setting. This study aims to determine whether SCIG is cost-effective compared with IVIG from a French social insurance perspective. Because both methods of administration provide similar efficacies, a cost-minimization analysis was performed. First, costs were calculated through a simulation testing different hypothesis on costs drivers. Secondly, costs were estimated on the basis of field data collected by a questionnaire completed by a population of patients suffering from agammaglobulinaemia and hyper-immunoglobulin (Ig)M syndrome. Patients' satisfaction was also documented. Results of the simulation showed that direct medical costs ranged from 19 484 euro for home-based IVIG to 25 583 euro for hospital-based IVIG, with home-based SCIG in between at 24 952 euro per year. Estimations made from field data were found to be different, with significantly higher costs for IVIG. This result was explained mainly by a higher immunoglobulin mean dose prescribed for IVIG. While the theoretical model showed very little difference between SCIG and hospital-based IVIG costs, SCIG appears to be 25% less expensive with field data because of lower doses used in SCIG patients. The reality of the dose difference between both routes of administration needs to be confirmed by further and more specific studies.

[Analysis of evaluation process of research projects submitted to the Fondo de Investigación Sanitaria, Spain]. / Análisis del proceso evaluador de los proyectos de investigación en el Fondo de Investigación Sanitaria.

BACKGROUND: At the present time it seems very clear that research improvement is both an unquestionable fact and the right way to develop technological innovation, services and patents. However, such improvement and corresponding finances needs to be done under fine and rigorous evaluation process as an assessment tool under which all the research projects applying to a public or private call for proposals should be submitted to assure a coherence point according to the investment to be made. At this end, the main target of this work has been focused to analysis and study the evaluation process traditionally made by Fondo de Investigación Sanitaria (FIS) as well as to propose most adequate modifications. MATERIAL AND METHOD: A sample of 431 research projects corresponding to year 1998 proposal was analysed. The evaluation from FIS and ANEP (National Evaluation and Prospective Agency) was evaluated and scored (evaluation quality) in its main contents by 3 independent evaluators, the showed results submitted to a comparative frame between these agencies at indoor (FIS) and outdoor (FIS/ANEP) level. RESULTS: FIS evaluation had 20 commissions or areas of knowledge. The analysis indoor (FIS) clearly showed that evaluation quality was correlated to the assigned commission (F = 3.71; p < 0.001) and to the time last of the researched proposal (F = 3.42; p < 0.05) but no related to the evaluator. On the other hand, the quality of ANEP evaluation showed a correlated dependency of the three mentioned facts. In all terms, the ANEP evaluation was better than FIS for the three years time projects, but in did not show significant differences in one or two years time projects. In all cases, the evaluation with final results as negative (financing denied) showed an average quality higher than positive evaluation. CONCLUSIONS: The obtained results advice about the convenience of making some changes in the evaluative structure and to review the sort of FIS technical commissions focusing an improvement of the evaluation process.

Dimensional assessment of onset of action of antidepressants: a comparative study of moclobemide vs. clomipramine in depressed patients with blunted affect and psychomotor retardation.

The onset of action (during the first 2 weeks of treatment) of moclobemide (450 mg/day), a reversible MAO-A inhibitor, was compared in a double-blind, multi-center trial with clomipramine (150 mg/day) on dimensional and global depressive symptoms in 124 hospitalized patients suffering from a major depressive episode according to DSM-III-R criteria and with blunted affect and retardation. An earlier efficacy was found for moclobemide with significant treatment differences in favor of moclobemide, which were detected on negative symptoms (anhedonia, blunted affect and retardation) on days 7 and 10. The overall effect on depression at the end of the 4-week trial period was similar in both groups. However, a higher termination rate due to lack of efficacy was found with moclobemide (10 vs. 3). The tolerability was significantly better for moclobemide, as shown by the lower frequency of adverse events.