A budget impact analysis of a powered hybrid mattress to prevent pressure ulcers in the Austrian inpatient setting: An original research.

Background and Aims: Pressure ulcer is a considerable health problem and is associated with an increased hospital length of stay (LOS), nursing effort, costs, and reduced quality of life. The aim of this analysis is to compare the economic, clinical, and nursing benefit after the implementation of the powered hybrid mattress Dyna-Form Mercury Advance SMARTcare® in 2019 with the situation in 2017 (rental systems Arjo BariAir® and Arjo TheraKair Visio®, and purchased foam mattresses Arjo Simuflex®) using a single center. Methods: In the framework of a budget impact analysis, a difference-in-difference approach was used to compare pre-implementation longitudinal data (2017) with post-implementation data (2019). The longitudinal data comprise the mattress resource use, patient characteristics, and LOS. The care effort was gathered based on a full survey of all 75 members of the nursing staff using the online tool "LimeSurvey." In this survey, the resource use of the different mattress systems was identified in terms of time (minutes or days). This analysis was performed from the hospital perspective and included direct costs of mattress systems, Austrian diagnostic-related group costs for the hospital stay and nursing staff costs for 2019. Results: Based on 1253 patients "at-risk," the total yearly costs implementing the powered hybrid mattress amounts to 654,248€ compared with 901,469€ when using Arjo products. The budget impact shows a cost advantage of 247,221€. Furthermore, the powered hybrid mattress system leads to fewer nursing-staff time in minutes per year (-1,031,097 min [1,993,204 vs. 3,024,302]); 242€ are saved per patient. Compared with the Arjo products, fewer inpatient cases of pressure ulcers (-44 cases [0 vs. 44]) were documented. Conclusion: Despite the higher total outlay of costs associated with the powered hybrid mattress, the long-term savings potential showed a significant cost advantage per annum for the single center. Therefore, the use of the hybrid mattress leads to considerable economic, clinical, and nursing benefits.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of apixaban compared to other direct oral anticoagulants for prevention of stroke in Austrian atrial fibrillation patients.

OBJECTIVES: Several direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have been approved by the European Medicines Agency since 2008. The aim of the present cost-effectiveness-analysis was to analyze apixaban compared to other DOACs and vitamin K antagonists (warfarin) in Austria. METHODS: A cost-utility-model was developed to simulate lifetime-costs and quality-adjusted-life-years of DOACs and warfarin, based on a published Markov-Model and 23 randomized trials with 94,656 atrial-fibrillation (AF) patients. Each year, a patient has a probability of suffering a clinically relevant (extracranial) bleed, an intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), an ischemic stroke or a myocardial infarction (MI), remaining healthy, or deceasing. Direct-costs (2018€) were derived from published sources from the payer's perspective. RESULTS: In the base-case, warfarin had the lowest cost of 12,968 € (95%-CI±593 €) followed by apixaban (15,269 €±661 €), edoxaban (15,534 €±641 €), dabigatran (15,687 €±667 €), and rivaroxaban (17,522 €±764 €). Apixaban had the highest quality-adjusted-life-years estimate at 5.45 (SD, 0.06). In a Monte-Carlo probabilistic sensitivity analysis, apixaban was cost-effective vs. edoxaban, dabigatran, warfarin, and rivaroxaban in 85.6%, 79.0%, 76.4%, and 61.2% of the simulations, respectively. CONCLUSION: In patients with AF and an increased risk of stroke, prophylaxis with apixaban was highly cost-effective from the perspective of the Austrian health-care system.

Economic impact of industry-sponsored clinical trials of pharmaceutical products in Austria.

Aims: Modern pharmaceutical product development is a long and complex process associated with significant investments by pharmaceutical companies. The innovative pharmaceutical industry accounts for the vast majority of expenditures in clinical trials of potential new pharmaceuticals and therefore generates economic activity within a country. The aim was to assess the far-reaching economic impact of industry-sponsored clinical-trials (ISCTs) of pharmaceutical products for the healthcare system and the national economy.Materials and methods: The study approach was based on three analytical steps. First, a survey among 15 pharmaceutical companies in Austria was conducted to evaluate the annual number of ISCTs subdivided according to trial phase, therapeutic areas and associated employees. Second, the monetary value of treatments performed in ISCTs was calculated based on a sample of clinical-trial protocols. Finally, the macroeconomic impact, measured in terms of value-added and jobs created by the conducted ISCTs, was calculated using Input-Output analysis by applying an extended Leontief-model.Results: The study demonstrated that €116.22 million spent in ISCTs generated a total value added of €144 million, €74 million direct, in 2018. Each year a medical treatment value of €100 million was financed through 463 ISCTs, with an average value of medical treatment of €37,068 per recruited patient. This represents a significant 0.3% of annual current health-expenditures. In summary, each Euro invested by the pharmaceutical industry in ISCTs generates €1.95 for the Austrian economy. ISCTs also created and secured employment in the extent of 2,021 full-time-equivalents, thus resulting in an employment multiplier of 1.66.Conclusions: In conclusion, conducting clinical-trials by pharmaceutical industry-beside its importance in its own domain-results in tangible benefits and a positive macroeconomic impact that contribute to the sustainability of the Austrian healthcare system by complementing its limited resources. Furthermore, it is a non-negligible factor in locational and industrial policy.