Topical application of hyaluronic acid and amino acids in hard-to-heal wounds: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this cost-effectiveness analysis was to estimate the monetary cost required to achieve a gain in health benefit. An analytic model to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a topical medical device comprising a mixture of hyaluronic acid and amino acids (HA+AA medical device) (Vulnamin, Professional Dietetics SpA, Italy) as compared to standard of care (SoC) for hard-to-heal (chronic) wounds is presented. METHOD: Retrospective data was analysed from a cohort of patients as well as information from published literature. For each paper, the following information was extracted: number of patients enrolled in each treatment arm and the results of prespecified reviewed outcomes. RESULTS: A total of six studies involving 378 patients were included in this pooled analysis. Findings showed that treatment with the HA+AA medical device has the potential to lower consumption of resources. With regards to wound healing, in both superficial and deep wounds, treatment benefits of the HA+AA medical device included: rapid wound size reduction; faster healing; reduction of dressing changes; reduced infection risk; and reduced treatment costs. Results showed the HA+AA medical device to be 32% more cost-effective than comparators in the treatment of hard-to-heal wounds (time horizon selected=six months). CONCLUSION: The findings of this analysis showed that treatment with the HA+AA medical device is a valid alternative to SoC care because it is cheaper, and its utility and effectiveness are greater. In addition, the results of the analysis showed a direct relationship between the time to complete healing and the increase in costs (increasing the period of time to reach complete healing increases the costs associated with the treatment).

Becoming an older caregiver: A study of gender differences in family caregiving at the end of life.

OBJECTIVES: Older people are not traditionally expected to become caregivers. For this reason, the experience of caregiving in older persons has not been explored adequately in the research on gender differences. The objective of this study was to assess the caregiver burden among older family members who care for cancer patients facing the end of their lives, in order to compare their differences according to gender (male vs. female). METHODS: This is a cross-sectional study. A total of 102 older caregivers (aged ≥65 years) of hospice patients were interviewed through the Caregiver Burden Inventory (CBI). The sample group was divided into two gender subgroups. RESULTS: Compared with male caregivers, the older female group reported significantly higher scores in the CBI-physical subscale (P = 0.028), and in the CBI, the overall score (P = 0.0399) confirmed by the generalized linear model (multivariate) evaluation that included possible predictors in the model. There were no significant differences in the other CBI subscale scores (time-dependent, developmental, social, and emotional). SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: Older female caregivers are at higher risk of experiencing burden and worse physical health compared with men. Further research is needed in modern palliative care to assess the role of gender differences in the experience of caregiving when the caregiver is an older person.

Evaluation of the efficacy and safety of deferiprone compared with deferasirox in paediatric patients with transfusion-dependent haemoglobinopathies (DEEP-2): a multicentre, randomised, open-label, non-inferiority, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Transfusion-dependent haemoglobinopathies require lifelong iron chelation therapy with one of the three iron chelators (deferiprone, deferasirox, or deferoxamine). Deferasirox and deferiprone are the only two oral chelators used in adult patients with transfusion-dependent haemoglobinopathies. To our knowledge, there are no randomised clinical trials comparing deferiprone, a less expensive iron chelator, with deferasirox in paediatric patients. We aimed to show the non-inferiority of deferiprone versus deferasirox. METHODS: DEEP-2 was a phase 3, multicentre, randomised trial in paediatric patients (aged 1 month to 18 years) with transfusion-dependent haemoglobinopathies. The study was done in 21 research hospitals and universities in Italy, Egypt, Greece, Albania, Cyprus, Tunisia, and the UK. Participants were receiving at least 150 mL/kg per year of red blood cells for the past 2 years at the time of enrolment, and were receiving deferoxamine (<100 mg/kg per day) or deferasirox (<40 mg/kg per day; deferasirox is not registered for use in children aged <2 years so only deferoxamine was being used in these patients). Any previous chelation treatment was permitted with a 7-day washout period. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive orally administered daily deferiprone (75-100 mg/kg per day) or daily deferasirox (20-40 mg/kg per day) administered as dispersible tablets, both with dose adjustment for 12 months, stratified by age (<10 years and ≥10 years) and balanced by country. The primary efficacy endpoint was based on predefined success criteria for changes in serum ferritin concentration (all patients) and cardiac MRI T2-star (T2*; patients aged >10 years) to show non-inferiority of deferiprone versus deferasirox in the per-protocol population, defined as all randomly assigned patients who received the study drugs and had available data for both variables at baseline and after 1 year of treatment, without major protocol violations. Non-inferiority was based on the two-sided 95% CI of the difference in the proportion of patients with treatment success between the two groups and was shown if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI was greater than -12·5%. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This study is registered with EudraCT, 2012-000353-31, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01825512. FINDINGS: 435 patients were enrolled between March 17, 2014, and June 16, 2016, 393 of whom were randomly assigned to a treatment group (194 to the deferiprone group; 199 to the deferasirox group). 352 (90%) of 390 patients had ß-thalassaemia major, 27 (7%) had sickle cell disease, five (1%) had thalassodrepanocytosis, and six (2%) had other haemoglobinopathies. Median follow-up was 379 days (IQR 294-392) for deferiprone and 381 days (350-392) for deferasirox. Non-inferiority of deferiprone versus deferasirox was established (treatment success in 69 [55·2%] of 125 patients assigned deferiprone with primary composite efficacy endpoint data available at baseline and 1 year vs 80 [54·8%] of 146 assigned deferasirox, difference 0·4%; 95% CI -11·9 to 12·6). No significant difference between the groups was shown in the occurrence of serious and drug-related adverse events. Three (2%) cases of reversible agranulocytosis occurred in the 193 patients in the safety analysis in the deferiprone group and two (1%) cases of reversible renal and urinary disorders (one case of each) occurred in the 197 patients in the deferasirox group. Compliance was similar between treatment groups: 183 (95%) of 193 patients in the deferiprone group versus 192 (97%) of 197 patients in the deferisirox group. INTERPRETATION: In paediatric patients with transfusion-dependent haemoglobinopathies, deferiprone was effective and safe in inducing control of iron overload during 12 months of treatment. Considering the need for availability of more chelation treatments in paediatric populations, deferiprone offers a valuable treatment option for this age group. FUNDING: EU Seventh Framework Programme.

Cost-effectiveness of zofenopril in patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction after acute myocardial infarction: a post hoc analysis of SMILE-4.

BACKGROUND: In SMILE-4 (the Survival of Myocardial Infarction Long-term Evaluation 4 study), zofenopril + acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) was superior to ramipril + ASA in reducing the occurrence of major cardiovascular events in patients with left ventricular dysfunction following acute myocardial infarction. The present post hoc analysis was performed to compare the cost-effectiveness of zofenopril and ramipril. METHODS: In total, 771 patients with left ventricular dysfunction and acute myocardial infarction were randomized in a double-blind manner to receive zofenopril 60 mg/day (n = 389) or ramipril 10 mg/day (n = 382) + ASA 100 mg/day and were followed up for one year. The primary study endpoint was the one-year combined occurrence of death or hospitalization for cardiovascular causes. The economic analysis was based on evaluation of cost of medications and hospitalizations and was applied to the intention-to-treat population (n = 716). Cost data were drawn from the National Health Service databases of the European countries participating in the study. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was used to quantify the cost per event prevented with zofenopril versus ramipril. RESULTS: Zofenopril significantly (P = 0.028) reduced the risk of the primary study endpoint by 30% as compared with ramipril (95% confidence interval, 4%-49%). The number needed to treat to prevent a major cardiovascular event with zofenopril was 13 less than with ramipril. The cost of drug therapies was higher with zofenopril (328.78 Euros per patient per year, n = 365) than with ramipril (165.12 Euros per patient per year, n = 351). The cost related to the occurrence of major cardiovascular events requiring hospitalization averaged 4983.64 Euros for zofenopril and 4850.01 Euros for ramipril. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for zofenopril versus ramipril was 2125.45 Euros per event prevented (worst and best case scenario in the sensitivity analysis was 3590.09 and 3243.96 Euros, respectively). CONCLUSION: Zofenopril is a viable and cost-effective treatment for managing patients with left ventricular dysfunction after acute myocardial infarction.

Trends in hospitalization for heart failure in Italy 2001-2003.

BACKGROUND: Heart failure is one of the main causes of hospitalization in Italy. In some industrialized countries since the second half of 1990s a halt in the grow rate of hospitalization for this pathology has been observed, and in some cases a reversal. The aim of this study was to evaluate the trend of hospitalization for heart failure in Italy in the years 2001, 2002 and 2003. MATERIALS AND METHODS: National hospital discharge data for years 2001, 2002 and 2003 were analysed. RESULTS: Heart failure hospitalization increased from 193 042 in 2001 to 205 043 in 2002 (+6.2%) and to 211 183 in 2003 (+3% with respect to 2002). In 2003 heart failure was the primary medical cause of hospitalization (1.6%). Hospitalization for heart failure accounted in 2003 for 2% of global hospitalization costs. CONCLUSIONS: Heart failure is the primary cause of hospitalization in Italy and the rate of hospital admission from 2001 to 2003 continued to increase, as well as related costs. These data indicate the urgent need for implementation of new models for the management of heart failure, based on a healthcare network, including hospital, ambulatory and home care, potentially capable of ameliorating both quality of life and costs of assistance.