Analysis of cost-effectiveness of chemotherapeutic agents and new therapies for the management of unresectable and metastatic melanoma.

BACKGROUND: The advent of targeted therapies and immunotherapies has revolutionized metastatic melanoma (MM) management but their use is associated with high daily costs compared to chemotherapies: €2 for dacarbazine versus €175 for immunotherapies and €413 for targeted therapies. While overall survival (OS) has increased, healthcare expenditures are expected to double by 2030. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to estimate the median OS and costs for MM patients in order to evaluate the effectiveness of new biological or targeted therapies (NT) used since 2013 compared to chemotherapies. MATERIALS & METHODS: This was a retrospective monocentric cost-effectiveness analysis performed in CHU Nantes (Nantes University Hospital). All MM patients treated with conventional chemotherapy as first-line treatment between 2008 and 2012 were included (CHEMO group). The same number of patients treated with NT as first-line between 2013 and 2017 were included (NT group). RESULTS: In total, 161 patients were included in each group. The mean age at diagnosis was 64.7±2.4 years in the CHEMO group and 65.3±2.4 years in the NT group (not significant). The men/women ratio was 1.48 and 1.27, respectively, (not significant). The median OS was 158 days in the CHEMO group and 395 days in the NT group (p<0.001). Treatment cost was €10,280/patient versus €94,676/patient, respectively. The mean incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was €90,184/LY (95% CI: €59,637; €166,395). CONCLUSION: Our study assessed clinical and economic features associated with MM management before and after the advent of NT. Costs and life expectancy have increased. NT appears to be cost-effective.

Decline in subarachnoid haemorrhage volumes associated with the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, decreased volumes of stroke admissions and mechanical thrombectomy were reported. The study's objective was to examine whether subarachnoid haemorrhage (SAH) hospitalisations and ruptured aneurysm coiling interventions demonstrated similar declines. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional, retrospective, observational study across 6 continents, 37 countries and 140 comprehensive stroke centres. Patients with the diagnosis of SAH, aneurysmal SAH, ruptured aneurysm coiling interventions and COVID-19 were identified by prospective aneurysm databases or by International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision, codes. The 3-month cumulative volume, monthly volumes for SAH hospitalisations and ruptured aneurysm coiling procedures were compared for the period before (1 year and immediately before) and during the pandemic, defined as 1 March-31 May 2020. The prior 1-year control period (1 March-31 May 2019) was obtained to account for seasonal variation. FINDINGS: There was a significant decline in SAH hospitalisations, with 2044 admissions in the 3 months immediately before and 1585 admissions during the pandemic, representing a relative decline of 22.5% (95% CI -24.3% to -20.7%, p<0.0001). Embolisation of ruptured aneurysms declined with 1170-1035 procedures, respectively, representing an 11.5% (95%CI -13.5% to -9.8%, p=0.002) relative drop. Subgroup analysis was noted for aneurysmal SAH hospitalisation decline from 834 to 626 hospitalisations, a 24.9% relative decline (95% CI -28.0% to -22.1%, p<0.0001). A relative increase in ruptured aneurysm coiling was noted in low coiling volume hospitals of 41.1% (95% CI 32.3% to 50.6%, p=0.008) despite a decrease in SAH admissions in this tertile. INTERPRETATION: There was a relative decrease in the volume of SAH hospitalisations, aneurysmal SAH hospitalisations and ruptured aneurysm embolisations during the COVID-19 pandemic. These findings in SAH are consistent with a decrease in other emergencies, such as stroke and myocardial infarction.

Causes of inappropriate hospital days: development and validation of a French assessment tool for rehabilitation centres.

OBJECTIVE: To develop and validate a list of criteria to assess the causes of inappropriate hospital days for patients admitted to rehabilitation centres and sub-acute care units. DESIGN: The tool was developed by a multidisciplinary panel of 33 experts, using a formalized consensus method. It collects both the needs of patients (distinguishing healthcare needs (9 criteria) and accommodation needs (9 criteria)) and the reasons for inappropriateness (19 criteria). Inappropriate days were identified using the tool to assess appropriateness of hospital days validated previously. Reliability was studied by measuring agreement between two independent simultaneous ratings. SETTING: The validation study was performed on a randomized sample of 576 hospital days from 22 wards in France. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Inter-rater reliability was evaluated using the κ-statistic and prevalence-adjusted and bias-adjusted kappa (PABAK). RESULTS: For patient accommodation needs, the inter-rater reliability was estimated by a κ-value of 0.80 (95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.66-0.92) and a PABAK of 0.80 (95% CI 0.63-0.91). There was good agreement on the reasons for inappropriateness, with κ-values from 0.30 to 0.60 and PABAK from 0.46 to 0.69. The κ-coefficient varied from 0.33 to 0.49 for the assessment of patient healthcare needs, with PABAK ranging from 0.49 to 0.72. CONCLUSIONS: The instrument is suitable and valid to assess the causes of inappropriate hospital days in rehabilitation centres and sub-acute care units. The study showed that the tool can be easily used by healthcare workers, which makes it useful for quality improvement.

Validation of a tool assessing appropriateness of hospital days in rehabilitation centres.

OBJECTIVE: To develop and validate a list of objective criteria to assess the appropriateness of hospital days for patients admitted to rehabilitation centres and sub-acute care units. DESIGN: Sixteen appropriateness criteria were defined by a multidisciplinary panel of 33 experts using a formalized consensus method. A single ticked criterion classifies the hospital day as appropriate. Reliability was studied by measuring concordance between two independent and simultaneous ratings using the instrument. External validity was tested by comparing conclusions derived from the instrument with the individual judgements of one, two or three experts on the same random sample of hospital days. PARTICIPANTS: The assessment on these criteria was performed on a randomized sample of 406 hospital days from 17 French wards. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Inter-rater reliability and external validity were evaluated using the kappa statistic and prevalence-adjusted and bias-adjusted kappa (PABAK). RESULTS: The inter-rater reliability test showed a kappa-value of 0.71 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.63-0.78] and a PABAK of 0.77 (95% CI 0.70-0.83). There was a good agreement between the conclusions reached using the instrument and the individual judgements of experts with a kappa coefficient of 0.42 (95% CI 0.35-0.50) and a PABAK of 0.60 (95% CI 0.52-0.67). CONCLUSIONS: The instrument is reliable and valid for assessing appropriateness of hospital days in rehabilitation centres and sub-acute care units. The next step in this study is the development of a tool for the analysis of causes of inappropriateness.