Ward based goal directed fluid therapy (GDFT) in acute pancreatitis (GAP) trial: A feasibility randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Goal-directed fluid therapy (GDFT) reduces complications in patients undergoing major general surgery. There are no reports of cardiac output evaluation being used to optimise the fluid administration for patients with acute pancreatitis (AP) in a general surgery ward. METHOD: 50 patients with AP were randomised to either ward-based GDFT (n = 25) with intravenous (IV) fluids administered based on stroke volume optimisation protocol or standard care (SC) (n = 25), but with blinded cardiac output evaluation, for 48-h following hospital admission. Primary outcome was feasibility. RESULTS: 50 of 116 eligible patients (43.1%) were recruited over 20 months demonstrating feasibility. 36 (72%) completed the 48-h of GDFT; 10 (20%) discharged within 48-h and 4 withdrawals (3 GDFT, 1 SC). Baseline characteristics were similar with only 3 participants having severe disease (6%, 1 GDFT, 2 SC). Similar volumes of IV fluids were administered in both groups (GDFT 5465 (1839) ml, SC 5211 (1745) ml). GDFT group had a lower heart rate, blood pressure and respiratory rate and improved oxygen saturations. GDFT was not associated with any harms. There was no evidence of difference in complications of AP (GDFT 24%, SC 32%) or in the duration of stay in intensive care (GDFT 0 (0), SC 0.7 (3) days). Length of hospital stay was 5 (2.9) days in GDFT and 6.3 (7.6) in SC groups. CONCLUSION: Ward-based GDFT is feasible and shows a signal of possible efficacy in AP in this early-stage study. A larger multi-site RCT is required to confirm clinical and cost effectiveness.

Cost Consequence Analysis of the Management of Hyperkalemia by Patiromer and Optimization of Renin-Angiotensin-Aldosterone System Inhibitors Therapy in Chronic Kidney Disease Patients in Saudi Arabia.

Renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors (RAASi) have been shown to improve outcomes in chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients but are associated with an increased risk of hyperkalemia in this vulnerable population. Hyperkalemia often leads to patients' downtitrating or discontinuing RAASi which can result in sub-optimal health outcomes. The objective is to evaluate the cost and health benefits of maintaining normokalemia using patiromer, an oral potassium binder while optimizing RAASi therapy in CKD patients in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The medium-to long-term costs and health outcomes of patients with CKD stage 3-4 and raised serum potassium levels (≥5.5 mmol/L) at baseline were estimated, from a Saudi Arabia payer perspective, using a Markov state-transition model simulating the natural progression of CKD depending on patients' serum potassium level and usage of RAASi at different dosages. The analysis demonstrated that appropriate management of hyperkalemia, enabling optimization of RAASi, leads to cost and health benefits. The cost of patiromer is offset by 68% due to a reduction in management costs associated with CKD progression, hyperkalemia-related hospitalization, and cardiovascular (CV) events. Over a 10-year time horizon, a pool of 300 patients treated with patiromer experience increased life-expectancy [+3.78 life-years (LYs)] and slower disease progression, with decreased time spent in end-stage renal disease (-9.59 LYs). Patiromer may deliver value to both CKD patients and payers in Saudi Arabia, leading to better health outcomes for the former and reduced cost of management of CKD progression and CV events at low additional costs for the latter.

Disease burden and economic impact of diagnosed non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) in the United Kingdom (UK) in 2018.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) - a progressive subset of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) - is a chronic liver disease that can progress to advanced fibrosis, cirrhosis, and end-stage liver disease (ESLD) if left untreated. Early-stage NASH is usually asymptomatic, meaning a large proportion of the prevalent population are undiagnosed. Receiving a NASH diagnosis increases the probability that a patient will receive interventions for the purpose of managing their condition. The purpose of this study was to estimate the disease burden and economic impact of diagnosed NASH in the United Kingdom (UK) adult population in 2018. METHODS: The socioeconomic burden of diagnosed NASH from a societal perspective was estimated using cost-of-illness methodology applying a prevalence approach. This involved estimating the number of adults with diagnosed NASH in the UK in a base period (2018) and the economic and wellbeing costs attributable to diagnosed NASH in that period. The analysis was based on a targeted review of the scientific literature, existing databases and consultation with clinical experts, health economists and patient groups. RESULTS: Of the prevalent NASH population in the UK in 2018, an estimated 79.8% were not diagnosed. In particular, of the prevalent population in disease stages F0 to F2, only 2.0% (F0), 2.0% (F1) and 16.5% (F2), respectively, were diagnosed. Total economic costs of diagnosed NASH in the UK ranged from £2.3 billion (lower prevalence scenario, base probability of diagnosis scenario) to £4.2 billion (higher prevalence scenario, base probability of diagnosis scenario). In 2018, people with NASH in the UK were estimated to experience 94,094 to 174,564 disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) overall. Total wellbeing costs associated with NASH in 2018 were estimated to range between £5.6 to £10.5 billion. CONCLUSION: The prevention and appropriate management of adult NASH patients could result in reduced economic costs and improvements in wellbeing.

Disease burden and economic impact of diagnosed non-alcoholic steatohepatitis in five European countries in 2018: A cost-of-illness analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) is a chronic disease that can progress to end-stage liver disease (ESLD). A large proportion of early-stage NASH patients remain undiagnosed compared to those with advanced fibrosis, who are more likely to receive disease management interventions. This study estimated the disease burden and economic impact of diagnosed NASH in the adult population of France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the United Kingdom in 2018. METHODS: The socioeconomic burden of diagnosed NASH was estimated using cost-of-illness methodology applying a prevalence approach to estimate the number of adults with NASH and the attributable economic and wellbeing costs. Given undiagnosed patients do not incur costs in the study, the probability of diagnosis is central to cost estimation. The analysis was based on a literature review, databases and consultation with clinical experts, economists and patient groups. RESULTS: The proportion of adult NASH patients with a diagnosis ranged from 11.9% to 12.7% across countries, which increased to 38.8%-39.1% for advanced fibrosis (F3-F4 compensated cirrhosis). Total economic costs were €8548-19 546M. Of these, health system costs were €619-1292M. Total wellbeing costs were €41 536-90 379M. The majority of the undiagnosed population (87.3%-88.2% of total prevalence) was found to have early-stage NASH, which, left untreated, may progress to more resource consuming ESLD over time. CONCLUSIONS: This study found that the majority of economic and wellbeing costs of NASH are experienced in late disease stages. Earlier diagnosis and care of NASH patients could reduce future healthcare costs.

The cost-effectiveness of isavuconazole compared to the standard of care in the treatment of patients with invasive fungal infection prior to differential pathogen diagnosis in the United Kingdom.

Aims: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of isavuconazole compared with the standard of care, voriconazole, for the treatment of patients with invasive fungal infection disease when differential diagnosis of the causative pathogen has not yet been achieved at treatment initiation.Materials and methods: The economic model was developed from the perspective of the UK National Health Service (NHS) and used a decision-tree approach to reflect real-world treatment of patients with invasive fungal infection (IFI) prior to differential pathogen diagnosis. It was assumed that 7.8% of patients with IFI prior to differential pathogen diagnosis at treatment initiation actually had mucormycosis, and confirmation of pathogen identification was achieved for 50% of all patients during treatment. To extrapolate to a lifetime horizon, the model considered expected survival based on the patients' underlying condition. The model estimated the incremental costs (costs of drugs, laboratory analysis, hospitalization, and management of adverse events) and clinical outcomes (life-years (LYs) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs)) of first-line treatment with isavuconazole compared with voriconazole. The robustness of the results was assessed by conducting deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.Results: Isavuconazole delivered 0.48 more LYs and 0.39 more QALYs per patient at an incremental cost of £3,228, compared with voriconazole in the treatment of patients with IFI prior to differential pathogen diagnosis. This equates to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £8,242 per additional QALY gained and £6,759 per LY gained. These results were driven by a lack of efficacy of voriconazole in mucormycosis. Results were most sensitive to the mortality of IA patients and treatment durations.Conclusions: At a willingness to pay (WTP) threshold of £30,000 per additional QALY, the use of isavuconazole for the treatment of patients with IFI prior to differential pathogen diagnosis in the UK can be considered a cost-effective allocation of healthcare resources compared with voriconazole.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of isavuconazole versus voriconazole for the treatment of patients with possible invasive aspergillosis in Sweden.

BACKGROUND: Voriconazole is well established as standard treatment for invasive aspergillosis (IA). In 2017, isavuconazole, a new antifungal from the azole class, with a broader pathogen spectrum, was introduced in Sweden. A model has therefore been developed to compare the cost-effectiveness of isavuconazole and voriconazole in the treatment of possible IA in adults in Sweden. METHODS: The cost-effectiveness of isavuconazole versus voriconazole was evaluated using a decision-tree model. Patients with possible IA entered the model, with 6% assumed to actually have mucormycosis. It was also assumed that pathogen information would become available during the course of treatment for only 50% of patients, with differential diagnosis unavailable for the remainder. Patients who were considered unresponsive to first-line treatment were switched to second-line treatment with liposomal amphotericin-B. Data and clinical definitions included in the model were taken from the published randomised clinical trial comparing isavuconazole with voriconazole for the treatment of IA and other filamentous fungi (SECURE) and the single-arm, open-label trial and case-control analysis of isavuconazole for the treatment of mucormycosis (VITAL). A probabilistic sensitivity analysis was used to estimate the combined parameter uncertainty, and a deterministic sensitivity analysis and a scenario analysis were performed to test the robustness of the model assumptions. The model followed a Swedish healthcare payer perspective, therefore only considering direct medical costs. RESULTS: The base case analysis showed that isavuconazole resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of 174,890 Swedish krona (SEK) per additional quality adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. This was mainly due to the efficacy of isavuconazole against IA and mucormycosis, as opposed to voriconazole, which is only effective against IA. Sensitivity and scenario analyses of the data showed that the average ICER consistently fell below the willingness to pay (WTP) threshold of 1,000,000 SEK. The probability of isavuconazole being cost-effective at a WTP of 170,000 SEK per QALY gained was 50% and at a WTP of 500,000 SEK per QALY gained was 100%. CONCLUSIONS: This model suggests that the treatment of possible IA with isavuconazole is cost-effective compared with treatment with voriconazole from a Swedish healthcare payer perspective.