Adverse Outcomes, Healthcare Resource Utilization, and Costs Associated with Systemic Corticosteroid use Among Adults with Systemic Lupus Erythematosus in the UK.

INTRODUCTION: This analysis was conducted to assess the incidence of adverse clinical outcomes, healthcare resource use (HCRU), and the costs associated with systemic corticosteroid (SCS) use in adults with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) in the UK. METHODS: We identified incident SLE cases using the Clinical Practice Research Datalink GOLD, Hospital Episode Statistics-linked healthcare, and Office for National Statistics mortality databases from January 1, 2005, to June 30, 2019. Adverse clinical outcomes, HCRU, and costs were captured for patients with and without prescribed SCS. RESULTS: Of 715 patients, 301 (42%) had initiated SCS use (mean [standard deviation (SD)] 3.2 [6.0] mg/day) and 414 (58%) had no recorded SCS use post-SLE diagnosis. Cumulative incidence of any adverse clinical outcome over 10-year follow-up was 50% (SCS group) and 22% (non-SCS group), with osteoporosis diagnosis/fracture most frequently reported. SCS exposure in the past 90 days was associated with an adjusted hazard ratio of 2.41 (95% confidence interval 1.77-3.26) for any adverse clinical outcome, with increased hazard for osteoporosis diagnosis/fracture (5.26, 3.61-7.65) and myocardial infarction (4.52, 1.16-17.71). Compared to low-dose SCS (< 7.5 mg/day), patients on high-dose SCS (≥ 7.5 mg/day) had increased hazard for myocardial infarction (14.93, 2.71-82.31), heart failure (9.32, 2.45-35.43), osteoporosis diagnosis/fracture (5.14, 2.82-9.37), and type 2 diabetes (4.02 1.13-14.27). Each additional year of SCS use was associated with increased hazard for any adverse clinical outcome (1.15, 1.05-1.27). HCRU and costs were greater for SCS users than non-SCS users. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with SLE, there is a higher burden of adverse clinical outcomes and greater HCRU in SCS versus non-SCS users.

Healthcare Resource Use and Costs Associated with Organ Damage in Newly Diagnosed Adults with Systemic Lupus Erythematosus in the UK.

INTRODUCTION: This analysis compared healthcare resource use (HCRU) and costs associated with incident organ damage in a cohort of adult patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). METHODS: Incident SLE cases were identified (Clinical Practice Research Datalink [CPRD] and Hospital Episode Statistics-linked healthcare databases; January 1, 2005-June 30, 2019). Annual incidence of 13 organ damage domains was calculated from SLE diagnosis through follow-up. Annualized HCRU and costs were compared between organ damage and non-organ damage patient groups using generalized estimating equations. RESULTS: A total of 936 patients met the inclusion criteria for SLE. Mean age was 48.0 (standard deviation [SD] 15.7) years and 88% were female. Over a median follow-up period of 4.3 (interquartile range [IQR] 1.9-7.0) years, 59% (315/533) had evidence of post-SLE diagnosis incident organ damage (≥ 1 type), which was greatest for musculoskeletal (146/819 [18%]), cardiovascular (149/842 [18%]), and skin (148/856 [17%]) domains. Patients with organ damage had greater resource use for all organ systems, excluding gonadal, versus those without it. Overall, mean (SD) annualized all-cause HCRU was greater in patients with organ damage versus those without it (inpatient, 1.0 versus 0.2; outpatient, 7.3 versus 3.5; accident and emergency, 0.5 versus 0.2 days; primary care contacts, 28.7 versus 16.5; prescription medications, 62.3 versus 22.9). Adjusted mean annualized all-cause costs were significantly greater in both post- and pre-organ damage index periods for patients with organ damage versus those without it (all P < 0.05, excluding gonadal). Overall organ damage was associated with significantly increased adjusted mean annualized per-patient cost (£4442 greater [P < 0.0001]) ranging between £2709 and £7150 greater depending on the organ damage type. CONCLUSION: Organ damage was associated with higher HCRU and healthcare costs, before and after SLE diagnosis. More effective SLE management may slow disease progression, prevent organ damage onset, improve clinical outcomes, and reduce healthcare costs.

Dronedarone for the treatment of atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter.

This paper presents a summary of the evidence review group (ERG) report on the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of dronedarone for the treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF) or atrial flutter based upon a review of the manufacturer's submission to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) as part of the single technology appraisal process. The population considered in the submission were adult clinically stable patients with a recent history of or current non-permanent AF. Comparators were the current available anti-arrhythmic drugs: class 1c agents (flecainide and propafenone), sotalol and amiodarone. Outcomes were AF recurrence, all-cause mortality, stroke, treatment discontinuations (due to any cause or due to adverse events) and serious adverse events. The main evidence came from four phase III randomised controlled trials, direct and indirect meta-analyses from a systematic review, and a synthesis of the direct and indirect evidence using a mixed-treatment comparison. Overall, the results from the different synthesis approaches showed that the odds of AF recurrence appeared statistically significantly lower with dronedarone and other anti-arrhythmic drugs than with non-active control, and that the odds of AF recurrence are statistically significantly higher for dronedarone than for amiodarone. However, the results for outcomes of all-cause mortality, stroke and treatment discontinuations and serious adverse events were all uncertain. A discrete event simulation model was used to evaluate dronedarone versus antiarrhythmic drugs and standard therapy alone. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of dronedarone was relatively robust and less than 20,000 pounds per quality-adjusted life-year. Exploratory work undertaken by the ERG identified that the main drivers of cost-effectiveness were the benefits assigned to dronedarone for all-cause mortality and stroke. Dronedarone is not cost-effective relative to its comparators when the only effect of treatment is a reduction in AF recurrences. In conclusion, uncertainties remain in the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of dronedarone. In particular, the clinical evidence for the major drivers of cost-effectiveness (all-cause mortality and stroke), and consequently the additional benefits attributed in the economic model to dronedarone compared to other anti-arrhythmic drugs are highly uncertain. The final guidance, issued by NICE on 25 August 2010, states that: Dronedarone is recommended as an option for the treatment of non-permanent atrial fibrillation only in people: whose atrial fibrillation is not controlled by first-line therapy (usually including beta-blockers), that is, as a second-line treatment option, and who have at least one of the following cardiovascular risk factors: - hypertension requiring drugs of at least two different classes, diabetes mellitus, previous transient ischaemic attack, stroke or systemic embolism, left atrial diameter of 50 mm or greater, left ventricular ejection fraction less than 40% (noting that the summary of product characteristics [SPC] does not recommend dronedarone for people with left ventricular ejection fraction less than 35% because of limited experience of using it in this group) or age 70 years or older, and who do not have unstable New York Heart Association (NYHA) class III or IV heart failure. Furthermore, 'People who do not meet the criteria above who are currently receiving dronedarone should have the option to continue treatment until they and their clinicians consider it appropriate to stop'.

Calculation of costs of pregnancy- and puerperium-related care: experience from a hospital in a low-income country.

Calculation of costs of different medical and surgical services has numerous uses, which include monitoring the performance of service-delivery, setting the efficiency target, benchmarking of services across all sectors, considering investment decisions, commissioning to meet health needs, and negotiating revised levels of funding. The role of private-sector healthcare facilities has been increasing rapidly over the last decade. Despite the overall improvement in the public and private healthcare sectors in Bangladesh, lack of price benchmarking leads to patients facing unexplained price discrimination when receiving healthcare services. The aim of the study was to calculate the hospital-care cost of disease-specific cases, specifically pregnancy- and puerperium-related cases, and to indentify the practical challenges of conducting costing studies in the hospital setting in Bangladesh. A combination of micro-costing and step-down cost allocation was used for collecting information on the cost items and, ultimately, for calculating the unit cost for each diagnostic case. Data were collected from the hospital records of 162 patients having 11 different clinical diagnoses. Caesarean section due to maternal and foetal complications was the most expensive type of case whereas the length of stay due to complications was the major driver of cost. Some constraints in keeping hospital medical records and accounting practices were observed. Despite these constraints, the findings of the study indicate that it is feasible to carry out a large-scale study to further explore the costs of different hospital-care services.