Value-based comparison of ambulatory children with respiratory diseases in an emergency department and a walk-in clinic: a retrospective cohort study in Québec, Canada.

OBJECTIVE: To compare health outcomes and costs given in the emergency department (ED) and walk-in clinics for ambulatory children presenting with acute respiratory diseases. DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study. SETTING: This study was conducted from April 2016 to March 2017 in one ED and one walk-in clinic. The ED is a paediatric tertiary care centre, and the clinic has access to lab tests and X-rays. PARTICIPANTS: Inclusion criteria were children: (1) aged from 2 to 17 years old and (2) discharged home with a diagnosis of upper respiratory tract infection (URTI), pneumonia or acute asthma. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was the proportion of patients returning to any ED or clinic within 3 and 7 days of the index visit. The secondary outcome measures were the mean cost of care estimated using time-driven activity-based costing and the incidence of antibiotic prescription for URTI patients. RESULTS: We included 532 children seen in the ED and 201 seen in the walk-in clinic. The incidence of return visits at 3 and 7 days was 20.7% and 27.3% in the ED vs 6.5% and 11.4% in the clinic (adjusted relative risk at 3 days (aRR) (95% CI) 3.17 (1.77 to 5.66) and aRR at 7 days 2.24 (1.46 to 3.44)). The mean cost (95% CI) of care (CAD) at the index visit was $C96.68 (92.62 to 100.74) in the ED vs $C48.82 (45.47 to 52.16) in the clinic (mean difference (95% CI): 46.15 (41.29 to 51.02)). Antibiotic prescription for URTI was less common in the ED than in the clinic (1.5% vs 16.4%; aRR 0.10 (95% CI 0.03 to 0.32)). CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of return visits and cost of care were significantly higher in the ED, while antibiotic use for URTI was more frequent in the walk-in clinic. These data may help determine which setting offers the highest value to ambulatory children with acute respiratory conditions.

Adaptation of time-driven activity-based costing to the evaluation of the efficiency of ambulatory care provided in the emergency department.

Objectives: The aim of this study was: (1) to adapt the time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC) method to emergency department (ED) ambulatory care; (2) to estimate the cost of care associated with frequently encountered ambulatory conditions; and (3) to compare costs calculated using estimated time and objectively measured time. Methods: TDABC was applied to a retrospective cohort of patients with upper respiratory tract infections, urinary tract infections, unspecified abdominal pain, lower back pain and limb lacerations who visited an ED in Québec City (Canada) during fiscal year 2015-2016. The calculated cost of care was the product of the time required to complete each care procedure and the cost per minute of each human resource or equipment involved. Costing based on durations estimated by care professionals were compared to those based on objective measurements in the field. Results: Overall, 220 care episodes were included and 3080 time measurements of 75 different processes were collected. Differences between costs calculated using estimated and measured times were statistically significant for all conditions except lower back pain and ranged from $4.30 to $55.20 (US) per episode. Differences were larger for conditions requiring more advanced procedures, such as imaging or the attention of ED professionals. Conclusions: The greater the use of advanced procedures or the involvement of ED professionals in the care, the greater is the discrepancy between estimated-time-based and measured-time-based costing. TDABC should be applied using objective measurement of the time per procedure.

Serious adverse drug events related to non-investigational drugs in academic clinical trials: another source of safety data for risk assessment?

AIMS: Sponsors of clinical trials have to analyze serious adverse events (SAEs). Both sponsors and investigators determine the relationship between the investigational medicinal product, the investigational device or procedure and SAEs. SAEs related to another cause, such as a non-investigational medicinal product (NIMP), do not have clear pharmacovigilance reporting requirements. The aim of this study was to evaluate the amount and the nature of NIMP-related SAEs recorded by three French academic sponsors and to propose pharmacovigilance requirements for these cases. METHODS: This was a retrospective descriptive study including all cases of NIMP-related SAEs occurring in clinical trials and reported to three academic sponsors between January 2009 and October 2014. RESULTS: Among 5870 cases of SAEs, 300 (5%) were related to a NIMP in 50 clinical trials. Involved NIMPs were mainly antithrombotics, cytostatics and immunosuppressants. Some of these drugs were currently followed by a risk management plan (e.g. rivoxaban). The most frequent NIMP-related SAEs were neurological, gastrointestinal and infectious disorders. Seven NIMP-related SAEs were known as 'rare' or 'very rare' and two were 'unlabelled'. CONCLUSIONS: As far as we know, this is the first study to focus about NIMP-related SAEs occurring in clinical trials. This work highlights the potential high quality source of safety data via NIMP-related SAE collection. Globally, we propose that NIMP-related SAEs occurring in clinical trials should systematically be notified to the pharmacovigilance system of the concerned country. Clearer procedures of interactions between safety units of academic sponsors and pharmacovigilance systems are needed to allow an effective recording of NIMP-related SAEs.

The nature of the scientific evidence leading to drug withdrawals for pharmacovigilance reasons in France.

INTRODUCTION: Because of design, objectives and number of included subjects, clinical studies are insufficient to assess the safety of new drugs. Sometimes, serious adverse drug reactions (ADRs) led to withdrawal of the drug from the market after their approval. The objective of our study was to determine the scientific evidences leading to drug withdrawal for pharmacovigilance reasons in France. METHODS: Data coming from French Health Products Safety Agency, literature and Toulouse Pharmacovigilance Center allowed to identify all drugs withdrawn from the French market for pharmacovigilance reasons from 1998 to 2004. We classified data according to their study design (Randomized Clinical Trial [RCT], case serie or case report, case-control study, cohort study, observational study, animal study), the organ/system affected and the type of ADR. RESULTS: A total of 21 drugs were withdrawn for safety reasons between 1998 and 2004 in France. The most frequent ADRs were hepatic (n = 7), cardiovascular (n = 4) or neurological (n = 3) ones. Eleven withdrawals were due to type-B ('unexpected') reactions (52%). For 19 out of 21 drugs, scientific evidence leading to drug withdrawal came from spontaneous case reports (or case series). Among these, case reports were the sole evidence in 12 cases. Withdrawals were based on evidence from case reports in combination with case-control or cohort study in four cases, in combination with observational study in two cases or in combination with animal study in two other cases. In only one case, a RCT supported the decision. CONCLUSIONS: This study underlines the importance of spontaneous case reports in detecting signals and supporting withdrawal of drug for pharmacovigilance reasons in France. Health authorities suffer from lack of comparative data resource. In this perspective, a pharmaco-epidemiological population-based database could represent a helpful tool to both generate and test safety hypotheses.