Healthcare Costs and Resource Utilisation of Italian Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Patients.

This study evaluated the economic burden of metastatic non-small cell lung cancer patients before and after the availability of an immuno-oncology (IO) regimen as a first-line (1L) treatment. Patients from 2014 to 2020 were categorized according to mutational status into mutation-positive and negative/unknown groups, which were further divided into pre-1L IO and post-1L IO sub-groups depending on the availability of pembrolizumab monotherapy in 1L. Healthcare costs and HCRU for a 1L treatment and overall follow-up were reported as the mean total and per-month cost per patient by groups. Of 644 patients, 125were mutation-positive and 519 negative/unknown (229 and 290 in pre- and post-1L IO, respectively). The mean total per-patient cost in 1L was lower in pre- (EUR 7804) and post-1L IO (EUR 19,301) than the mutation-positive group (EUR 45,247), persisting throughout overall disease follow-up. However, this difference was less when analyzing monthly costs. Therapy costs were the primary driver in 1L, while hospitalization costs rose during follow-up. In both mutation-positive and post-IO 1L groups, the 1L costs represented a significant portion (70.1% and 66.3%, respectively) of the total costs in the overall follow-up. Pembrolizumab introduction increased expenses but improved survival. Higher hospitalisation and emergency room occupation rates during follow-up reflected worsening clinical conditions of the negative/unknown group than the mutation-positive population.

The challenge of sustainability in healthcare systems: cost of radiotherapy in the last month of life in an Italian cancer center.

PURPOSE: Cost evaluation is becoming mandatory to support healthcare sustainability and optimize the decision-making process. This topic is a challenge, especially for complex and rapidly evolving treatment modalities such as radiotherapy (RT). The aim of the present study was to investigate the cost of RT in the last month of life of patients in an Italian cancer center. METHODS: This was a retrospective study on a cancer population (N= 160) who underwent RT or only an RT planning simulation in an end of life (EOL) setting. The cost of RT procedures performed on patients was collected according to treatment status, care setting, and RT technique used. Costs were valued according to the sum of reimbursements relating to all procedures performed and assessed from the perspective of the National Health System. RESULTS: The total cost of RT in the last month of life was €244,774, with an average cost per patient of €1530. Around 7.7% and 30.3% of the total cost was associated with patients who never started RT or who discontinued RT, respectively, while the remaining 62.0% referred to patients who completed treatment. Costs associated with outpatient and inpatient settings represented 54.3% and 38.6% of the total cost, respectively. The higher average cost per patient for the never-started and discontinued groups was correlated with patients who had a poor ECOG Performance Status. CONCLUSION: Improved prognostic accuracy and a better integration between radiotherapy and palliative care units could be a key to a better use of resources and to a reduction in the cost of EOL RT.

Re-use of explanted osteosynthesis devices: a reliable and inexpensive reprocessing protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Orthopaedic surgical treatments emphasizing immobilization using open reduction and internal fixation with osteosynthesis devices are widely accepted for their efficacy in treating complex fractures and reducing permanent musculoskeletal deformity. However, such treatments are profoundly underutilized in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC), partially due to inadequate availability of the costly osteosynthesis devices. Orthopaedic surgeons in some LMIC regularly re-use osteosynthesis devices in an effort to meet treatment demands, even though such devices typically are regulated for single-use only. The purpose of this study is to report a reprocessing protocol applied to explanted osteosynthesis devices obtained at a leading trauma care hospital. METHODS: Explanted osteosynthesis devices were identified through a Register of Explanted Orthopaedic Prostheses. Guidelines to handle ethical issues were approved by the local Ethical Committee and informed patient consent was obtained at the time of explant surgery. Primary acceptance criteria were established and applied to osteosynthesis devices explanted between 2005 and 2008. A rigorous protocol for conducting decontamination and visual inspection based on specific screening criteria was implemented using simple equipment that is readily available in LMIC. RESULTS: A total of 2050 osteosynthesis devices, including a large variety of plates, screws and staples, were reprocessed using the decontamination and inspection protocols. The acceptance rate was 66%. Estimated labour time and implementation time of the protocol to reprocess a typical osteosynthesis unit (1 plate and 5 screws) was 25 min, with an estimated fixed cost (in Italy) of €10 per unit for implementing the protocol, plus an additional €5 for final sterilization at the end-user hospital site. DISCUSSION: This study was motivated by the treatment demands encountered by orthopaedic surgeons providing medical treatment in several different LMIC and their need for access to basic osteosynthesis devices. The rigorous decontamination protocol and generalized inspection criteria proved useful for efficiently screening a large volume of devices. Given that re-used osteosynthesis devices can yield satisfactory results, this study addresses potential complications of re-used devices and valid concerns that relate to patient safety. Implementing this defined reprocessing protocol into existing re-use practises in LMIC helps to limit the risks of inadequate sterilization and structural failure without adding additional risks to patients receiving re-used devices.