Cost-utility analysis of deferasirox compared to standard therapy with desferrioxamine for patients requiring iron chelation therapy in the United Kingdom.

OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of the study was to evaluate the cost-utility of deferasirox (Exjade) compared to standard therapy using desferrioxamine (Desferal) for the control of iron overload in patients receiving frequent blood transfusions. The perspective adopted was that of the National Health Service in the UK. METHODS: Phase II/III clinical trials have shown deferasirox in the recommended doses of 20-30 mg/kg per day to have similar efficacy to desferrioxamine at equivalent doses in the control of chronic iron overload. The main difference between them is in the mode of administration. Desferrioxamine is administered parenterally as a slow subcutaneous infusion typically infused 8-12 hours a day for 5-7 days a week. In comparison, deferasirox provides 24 hour chelation via a once daily oral tablet dispersed in water or juice. An excel based economic model was developed to evaluate the annual healthcare costs and quality of life, or utility, benefits associated with differences in mode of administration, using beta-thalassaemia as the reference case. A community utility study using time trade-off methods was performed to determine utility outcomes associated with iron chelation therapy (ICT) mode of administration. RESULTS: In the reference case (patient mean weight 42 kg), deferasirox 'dominated' desferrioxamine, i.e. resulted in lower net costs and higher quality adjusted life years (QALYs). Drug dose and cost is patient weight related. Incremental cost per QALY gained was pound 7775 for patients with a mean weight of 62 kg. CONCLUSIONS: The cost-utility analysis did not take drug compliance into account. However, Deferasirox is cost-effective compared to standard iron chelation therapy with desferrioxamine, due to the cost and quality of life benefits derived from a simpler and more convenient oral mode of administration.

The implications of contact with the mentor for preregistration nursing and midwifery students.

AIM OF THE PAPER: To examine the extent to which preregistration nursing and midwifery students have contact with their named mentor, and the implications of this. BACKGROUND/RATIONALE: Mentorship has an important part to play in enabling preregistration nursing and midwifery students to gain the maximum benefit from clinical placements. Previous research has indicated that the benefits of mentorship to learners are related to the number of occasions on which the student and mentor work together. DESIGN/METHODS: A research project commissioned by the Sheffield and North Trent College of Nursing and Midwifery (now the University of Sheffield School of Nursing and Midwifery) provided an opportunity to examine the extent to which their named mentors were available to Project 2000 students, and the implications of this. Students and their named mentors were asked to keep an activity diary for 1 week. The main objective was to collect activity data to inform an analysis of the costs and benefits of clinical placements to service providers. This cost-benefit study has been published elsewhere. However, the data also cast light on the extent to which mentors were available to students, and the implications of this, and it is these findings which are presented here. RESULTS/FINDINGS: Students frequently worked shifts without their named mentors even though unrostered students often worked weekends, evening and night shifts in order to maximize time spent with their mentors. In the mentor's absence, other members of staff covered for some of their activities (in particular, direct and indirect supervision of students). However, students whose named mentors were absent spent significantly less time than other students working with a qualified member of staff as a partner in giving care. CONCLUSIONS: It is suggested that the extent to which named mentors are unavailable to Project 2000 students may be detrimental to the education and professional development of those students.

The cost and value of pre-registration clinical placements for Project 2000 students.

The research outlined in this article was commissioned by the Sheffield and North Trent College of Nursing and Midwifery to explore the cost implications of pre-registration clinical placements in the context of Project 2000. The authors outline the methodology and findings of an exercise designed to collect relevant cost information which was not readily available. On the basis of these findings, they suggest that: at 1995/1996 pay and prices, clinical placements cost the education provider approximately pound 890 per student per annum; in terms of real resources, the value to service providers of the service contribution made by second- and third-year nursing and midwifery students on ward-based placements outweighs the value of the time spent by qualified staff on their supervision and education. Once the funding assumptions underlying the introduction of Project 2000 have been taken into account, second- and third-year nursing and midwifery students benefit the service provider by on average pound 3.46 for every hour they spend in an unrostered ward-based placement. The service contribution made by students in community-based clinical placements cannot free staff time in the same way as on the wards and, because qualified staff in these areas are generally more highly graded, the value of the time they spend on the supervision and education of students on placement is higher than in ward-based placements. Second- and third-year students therefore appear to cost the service provider on average pound 0.48 for each hour they spend in a community-based placement. It was not possible to determine whether this cost translates into a reduction in patient contacts.