Content validity of the EQ-HWB and EQ-HWB-S in a sample of Italian patients, informal caregivers and members of the general public.

BACKGROUND: The EuroQol Group recently developed two new instruments, the EQ Health and Wellbeing (EQ-HWB) and the EQ Health and Wellbeing short version (EQ-HWB-S). The EQ-HWB and EQ-HWB-S are intended to capture a broad range of health and broader quality of life aspects, which may be relevant to general public members, patients, their families, social care users and informal carers. This study assesses the content validity of the Italian version of the two instruments in a sample of Italian patients, social care users and informal carers. METHODS: Participants were recruited using a convenience sampling approach. One-on-one interviews were carried out using video-conferencing interviews. A semi-structured topic guide was used to guide the interview procedures, with open-ended questions supplemented by probes. Participants were asked to explain important aspects of their health and quality of life, to complete the questionnaires and verbalize their thoughts. RESULTS: Twenty participants comprising of patients (n = 9), informal carers (n = 6), and members of the general public (n = 5) participated to the study. Content validity was summarized into six main themes: comprehension, interpretation, acceptability, relevance, response options and recall period. All participants found the instruments easy or quite easy to understand and to respond to. Items were relevant for all three groups of participants, and response options appropriate. CONCLUSIONS: The Italian version of the EQ-HWB showed content validity in measuring health and wellbeing in a mixed Italian population.

Cost-Utility Analysis of Esketamine for Patients with Treatment-Resistant Depression in Italy.

AIM: Major depressive disorder is considered one of the most frequent diseases in the general population, and treatment-resistant depression (TRD) represents the subset with more significant clinical and social impact. Large, robust phase III studies have shown safety and efficacy of esketamine nasal spray plus SSRI/SNRI antidepressants (ADs) compared with SSRI/SNRI plus placebo nasal spray in patients with TRD. The main aim of this study was to perform a cost-utility analysis comparing esketamine plus ADs with ADs alone in TRD patients, from the societal perspective in Italy. A secondary analysis focused on the National Healthcare Service (NHS) perspective. METHODS: A Markov multistate model has been developed to estimate quality-adjusted life years and economic outcomes of both treatment strategies over 5 years considering the initiation of esketamine in the different treatment lines, from 3 to 5 (3L-5L). The model has been populated with data from literature and real-world evidence. The analysis from the societal perspective considered direct healthcare costs and patients' productivity losses. In addition to the incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR), the incremental net monetary benefit (INMB) has been calculated as (incremental benefit × WTP) - incremental cost and by applying a willingness-to-pay (WTP) of 50,000€/QALY. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses have been performed to assess the robustness of the model results. RESULTS: From the societal perspective, the ICUR ranged between 16,314€ and 22,133€ per QALY according to the different treatment lines, while it was over the threshold of 100,000€/QALY for the NHS perspective. The INMB was positive and ranged from 2259€ to 2744€ across treatment lines in the societal perspective; the INMB begins to occur earlier when moving towards subsequent lines of treatment (3.9 years for 3L, 3.6 years for 4L and 3.5 years for 5L). The analyses showed also that the advantage in terms of INMB is maintained for a wide range of societal preferences expressed by WTP thresholds, and in particular for values above 22,200€, 16,400€ and 17,100€ for 3L, 4L and 5L, respectively. CONCLUSION: The study showed that esketamine may be a cost-effective opportunity from the societal perspective for the management of patients with treatment-resistant depression. In the future, data collected from observational studies or registries, which can include the collection of productivity losses and also costs sustained by the patients, will be able to provide further evidence in order to improve the reliability of the model results.

Costs and its drivers for diabetes mellitus type 2 patients in France and Germany: a systematic review of economic studies.

BACKGROUND: Type 2 diabetes represents an increasingly critical challenge for health policy worldwide. It absorbs massive resources from both patients and national economies to sustain direct costs of the treatment of type 2 diabetes and its complications and indirect costs related to work loss and wages. More recently, there are innovations based on remote control and personalised programs that promise a more cost-effective diabetes management while reducing diabetes-related complications. In such a context, this work attempts to update cost analysis reviews on type 2 diabetes, focusing on France and Germany, in order to explore most significant cost drivers and cost-saving opportunities through innovations in diabetes care. Although both countries approach care delivery differently, France and Germany represent the primary European markets for diabetes technologies. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature listed in MEDLINE, Embase and EconLit has been carried out. It covered interventional, observational and modelling studies on expenditures for type 2 diabetes management in France or Germany published since 2012. Included articles were analysed for annual direct, associated and indirect costs of type 2 diabetes patients. An appraisal of study quality was performed. Results were summarised narratively. RESULTS: From 1260 records, the final sample was composed of 24 papers selected according to predefined inclusion/exclusion criteria. Both France and Germany revealed a predominant focus on direct costs. Comparability was limited due to different study populations and cost categories used. Indirect costs were only available in Germany. According to prior literature, reported cost drivers are hospitalisation, prescriptions, higher HbA1c and BMI, treatment with insulin and complications, all indicators of disease severity. The diversity of available data and included costs limits the results and may explain the differences found. CONCLUSIONS: Complication prevention and glycaemic control are widely recognized as the most effective ways to control diabetes treatment costs. The value propositions of self-based supports, such as hybrid closed-loop metabolic systems, already implemented in type 1 diabetes management, are the key points for further debates and policymaking, which should involve the perspectives of caregivers, patients and payers.