Cost-Effectiveness of the Use of Autologous Cell Harvesting Device Compared to Standard of Care for Treatment of Severe Burns in the United States.

INTRODUCTION: When introducing a new intervention into burn care, it is important to consider both clinical and economic impacts, as the financial burden of burns in the USA is significant. This study utilizes a health economic modeling approach to estimate cost-effectiveness and burn center budget-impact for the use of the RECELL® Autologous Cell Harvesting Device to prepare autologous skin cell suspension (ASCS) compared to standard of care (SOC) split-thickness skin graft (STSG) for the treatment of severe burn injuries requiring surgical intervention for definitive closure. METHODS: A hospital-perspective model using sequential decision trees depicts the acute burn care pathway (wound assessment, debridement/excision, temporary coverage, definitive closure) and predicts the relative differences between use of ASCS compared to SOC. Clinical inputs and ASCS impact on length of stay (LOS) were derived from clinical trials and real-world use data, American Burn Association National Burn Repository database analyses, and burn surgeon interviews. Hospital resource use and unit costs were derived from three US burn centers. A budget impact calculation leverages Monte Carlo simulation to estimate the overall impact to a burn center. RESULTS: ASCS treatment is cost-saving or cost-neutral (< 2% difference) and results in lower LOS compared to SOC across expected patient profiles and scenarios. In aggregate, ASCS treatment saves a burn center 14-17.3% annually. Results are sensitive to, but remain robust across, changing assumptions for relative impact of ASCS use on LOS, procedure time, and number of procedures. CONCLUSIONS: Use of ASCS compared to SOC reduces hospital costs and LOS of severe burns in the USA. FUNDING: AVITA Medical.

Economic Evaluation of Treating Skeletal-Related Events among Prostate Cancer Patients.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the economic burden of treating skeletal-related events (SREs) in prostate cancer (PC) patients with bone metastasis from an insurer perspective. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort analysis using claims data. PC patients with bone metastasis were identified in the MarketScan Databases between January 1, 2004, and March 1, 2014. The propensity score matching approach was used to match patients with SREs to those without SREs. A pseudo-SRE date was assigned to the control group. We compared 6-month and 12-month total costs of patients between two groups after the SRE or pseudo-SRE date. All costs were adjusted to 2014 US$. RESULTS: We identified 4083 PC men with bone metastasis, from which 787 patients with SREs were matched (1:1) to those without SREs. On average, the total 6-month cost of treating patients with SREs was $43,746 compared with $25,956 in the matched control cohort (P < 0.05). The largest proportion of differences in costs between the two groups was incurred in the first month after the SRE index date or the pseudo-SRE date ($14,979 vs. $4,849; P < 0.05) and was mostly attributable to outpatient visits (43.4%; P < 0.05) and inpatient hospitalization (33.1%; P < 0.05). The total cost per patient over the 12-month period was $22,171 higher among patients with SREs than among patients without SREs (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that SREs impose considerable burden on health resource utilization for payers. Costs attributable to SREs were substantial. Most costs were incurred in the first month after the occurrence of SREs. Although costs decreased thereafter, they remained significantly higher for patients with SREs in subsequent months compared with patients without SREs.

The role of anxiety in prostate carcinoma: a structured review of the literature.

Although the impact of anxiety on patients with some types of cancer is well recognized, to the authors knowledge its impact on patients with prostate carcinoma has not been studied as thoroughly. The authors conducted a systematic review of the medical literature for high-quality articles that quantified anxiety levels in men with prostate carcinoma and identified 29 articles. Using the clinical timeline of prostate carcinoma to organize the articles, cross-sectional studies that reflected anxiety prevalence in populations and longitudinal studies that reflected changes in anxiety over time were identified. Anxiety appeared to fluctuate over the clinical timeline in response to stressors and uncertainty (such as at the time of screening and/or biopsy), rising before these times and falling afterward. Although anxiety levels in men age > 55 years who were at risk for prostate carcinoma were modest (10-15%), multiple studies found that these levels were substantially higher in men who presented for screening (> 50%), and "seeking peace of mind" was the motivation cited most frequently for pursuing screening. Most studies demonstrated a significant decrease in anxiety levels after a normal screening or biopsy result, although the proportion of men who remained anxious afterward did not fall to baseline levels (20-36%). Men who presented for prostate-specific antigen monitoring after treatment had elevated anxiety levels at the time of testing (23-33%). Many years after therapy for localized disease, anxiety levels were lower after prostatectomy (23%) compared with the levels after watchful waiting (31%).