Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 4 de 4
Filtrar
Mais filtros











Base de dados
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
Arch Phys Med Rehabil ; 104(6): 855-862, 2023 06.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36868490

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness of a cardiac rehabilitation (CR) program specifically designed for cardiac patients with obesity vs standard CR. DESIGN: Cost-effectiveness analysis based on observations in a randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Three regional CR centers in the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: Cardiac patients (N=201) with obesity (BMI≥30 kg/m2) referred to CR. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomized to a CR program specifically designed for patients with obesity (OPTICARE XL; N=102) or standard CR. OPTICARE XL included aerobic and strength exercise and behavioral coaching on diet and physical activity during 12 weeks, followed by a 9-month after-care program with "booster" educational sessions. Standard CR consisted of a 6- to 12-week aerobic exercise program, supplemented with cardiovascular lifestyle education. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: An economic evaluation, with an 18-month time horizon, in terms of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and costs from the societal perspective was performed. Costs were reported in 2020 Euros, discounted at a 4% annual rate, and health effects were discounted at a 1.5% annual rate. RESULTS: OPTICARE XL CR and standard CR resulted in comparable health gain per patient (0.958 vs 0.965 QALYs, respectively; P=.96). Overall, OPTICARE XL CR saved costs (-€4542) compared with the standard CR group. The direct costs for OPTICARE XL CR were higher than for standard CR (€10,712 vs €9951), whereas indirect costs were lower (€51,789 vs €57,092), but these differences were not significant. CONCLUSIONS: This economic evaluation showed no differences between OPTICARE XL CR and standard CR in health effects and costs in cardiac patients with obesity.


Assuntos
Reabilitação Cardíaca , Humanos , Reabilitação Cardíaca/métodos , Análise Custo-Benefício , Obesidade , Estilo de Vida , Exercício Físico
2.
J Neurol Sci ; 428: 117587, 2021 09 15.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34364148

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Persons with multiple sclerosis (MS) take their treatment via pills, injections or infusions. A novel mode of disease-modifying treatment administration, an implantable device, is under development. This study determined MS patient preferences for three modes of first-line treatment administration (implant, pills, injectables), and trade-offs regarding treatment characteristics. METHODS: A survey including a discrete choice experiment was conducted among MS patients in the Netherlands, France, and the United Kingdom. Respondents had to repeatedly choose between various treatment scenarios with four treatment characteristics: risk of relapse, reduction of disease progression, risk of side effects and mode of administration. Data was analysed using a panel latent class logit model. RESULTS: Based on the preferences of 753 MS patients (response rate 7%: 753/11202), two latent classes were identified (class probability of 74% vs 26%). Persons with relapsing-remitting MS and who administered medication via injections generally preferred any treatment over no treatment. Patients who could walk without an aid were more likely to prefer no treatment. Reducing disease progression was the most important treatment characteristic class 1. Mode of administration was the most important characteristic in class 2. Patients were willing to accept an increase in risk of relapse and disease progression to get their treatment via an implant rather than injections. Predicted uptake was the highest for the implant, followed by pills, injections, and no treatment. CONCLUSION: We found that a drug-delivery implant could be a potential addition to the MS treatment landscape: MS patients are willing to trade-off risk of relapse and disease progression for an implant, and predicted uptake for an implant is relatively high.


Assuntos
Esclerose Múltipla , Preferência do Paciente , Comportamento de Escolha , Europa (Continente) , Humanos , Esclerose Múltipla/tratamento farmacológico , Próteses e Implantes , Caminhada
3.
Patient Prefer Adherence ; 15: 927-937, 2021.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33994779

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Disease-modifying therapies are given to people with multiple sclerosis (MS) to reduce disease progression and relapse frequency. Current modes of administration include oral, injectable and infusion therapy and the treatment decision-making process is complex. A novel mode of treatment administration, an implantable device, is currently under development, yet patient attitudes about the device are unknown. The aim of this study was 1) to understand the treatment decision-making process from the patient perspective and 2) to explore the possible acceptance of an implant to treat MS. METHODS: Focus groups with people with MS were conducted in the Netherlands. Three topics were addressed: the treatment decision-making process, the current treatment landscape, and attitudes about the implantable device. All focus groups were recorded and transcribed and data were analyzed by raw data coding and creating themes. An online survey was conducted in the Netherlands to quantify interest in an implant. RESULTS: Two focus group sessions were held (n=16 participants) and n=93 persons filled out the survey. The main theme that emerged was the constant uncertainty persons with MS face throughout their disease course and during treatment decisions (when to start, stop, continue or switch treatment). Patients were generally positive towards the implant but felt that efficacy and safety should be guaranteed. CONCLUSION: People with MS want some form of control over their disease and treatment course. New medical technologies, such as an implant, may enhance the treatment landscape and with caution we postulate that it may be accepted by patients as a new mode of administration, though further research is needed. For medical technologies to be successful, patients should be engaged early on in the design process.

4.
Mult Scler Relat Disord ; 39: 101929, 2020 Jan 02.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31924590

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Considering the multiple treatments approved for multiple sclerosis (MS) by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA), determining a treatment strategy for patients with clinically isolated syndrome (CIS) and relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS) can be challenging. To date, an overview of the needs and preferences of patients at each treatment decision-making moment is lacking. Therefore, the aim of this systematic review is to examine the existing literature about the needs and preferences of patients with CIS and RRMS when making treatment decisions. METHODS: A systematic search was done using Embase, Medline, PsychINFO, Web of Science and Google Scholar. Eligibility criteria included whether the article described a study of adults with CIS/RRMS and reported patient needs or preferences regarding first-line disease modifying treatment (DMT) decisions. Publications were categorized by treatment decision: initiation of first DMT (D1), DMT adherence/discontinuation (D2a/D2b), and switch to a second DMT (D3). A separate category was created for stated preference studies such as discrete choice experiment methods to examine the relative importance of different treatment attributes. Publications were compared to identify key factors. RESULTS: The search yielded 2789 articles after removal of duplicates and 434 full-text publications were reviewed for eligibility. Twenty-four articles fulfilled all criteria: n = 5 (D1), n = 12 (D2a), n = 13 (D2b), and n = 3 (D3); six articles studied more than one treatment decision. The need for social support is important during D1. The most commonly reported reasons for adherence/discontinuation/switch included forgetfulness, side-effects, and injection-related reasons. Eight articles described preference studies; the most important DMT attributes were efficacy, mode and frequency of administration, and side-effect profile. CONCLUSIONS: Understanding the needs and preferences of CIS/RRMS patients regarding DMT attributes and non-treatment related attributes are important to improve treatment decision-making and reduce non-adherence. Studies are needed to understand patient preferences upon treatment initiation. Furthermore, preference studies should include attributes based on the patient perspective.

SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA