Trends in Phenylephrine and Pseudoephedrine Sales in the US.

This study examines purchasing patterns regarding oral decongestants, concerns about their efficacy, and the need for timelier postmarket evaluation.

Pupil expansion device use and operative outcomes with topical dilation vs intracameral epinephrine in resident-performed cataract surgery.

PURPOSE: To compare the use of topical dilation drops vs topical drops with the addition of intracameral epinephrine in resident-performed cataract surgery and the effects on pupil expansion device (PED) use, surgical costs, and surgical times. SETTING: Iowa City Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Iowa City, Iowa, USA. DESIGN: Retrospective chart review. METHODS: Resident-performed primary cataract surgical cases using topical dilation drops only or drops with the addition of intracameral epinephrine were analyzed for PED use, surgical time, and costs in all patients and in patients with a history of tamsulosin use. RESULTS: In the topical group, PEDs were used in 31.1% of cases compared with 13.5% of cases in the intracameral group (P < .0001). History of tamsulosin use was noted in about one third of cases in both groups. For patients with a history of tamsulosin use, PED use decreased from 52.7% in the topical cases to 17.9% in the intracameral group (P < .0001). Surgical times were on average 7.1 minutes slower with PED use than without PED use. There was a medication savings of $50.44 USD per case in the intracameral group compared with the topical group. Factoring in the $100 to $130 USD per PED used, total surgical costs were $19 267 USD less in the intracameral group over 6 months. CONCLUSIONS: Intracameral epinephrine with lidocaine decreases the need for PED use during cataract surgery, lowers intraoperative costs, and improves efficiency compared with topical dilation drops alone.

Budget impact model of Mydrane®, a new intracameral injectable used for intra-operative mydriasis, from a UK hospital perspective.

BACKGROUND: During cataract surgery, maintaining an adequate degree of mydriasis throughout the entire operation is critical to allow for visualisation of the capsulorhexis and the crystalline lens. Good anaesthesia is also essential for safe intraocular surgery. Mydrane® is a new injectable intracameral solution containing two mydriatics (tropicamide 0.02% and phenylephrine 0.31%) and one anaesthetic (lidocaine 1%) that was developed as an alternative to the conventional topical pre-operative mydriatics used in cataract surgery. This study aimed to estimate the budget impact across a one year time frame using Mydrane® instead of topical dilating eye drops, for a UK hospital performing 3,000 cataract operations a year. METHODS: A budget impact model (BIM) was developed to compare the economic outcomes associated with the use of Mydrane® versus topical drops (tropicamide 0.5% and phenylephrine 10%) in patients undergoing cataract surgery in a UK hospital. The outcomes of interest included costs and resource use (e.g. clinician time, mydriasis failures, operating room time, number of patients per vial of therapy etc.) associated with management of mydriasis in patients undergoing cataract surgery. All model inputs considered the UK hospital perspective without social or geographical variables. Deterministic sensitivity analyses were also performed to assess the model uncertainty. RESULTS: Introduction of Mydrane® is associated with a cost saving of £6,251 over 3,000 cataract surgeries in one year. The acquisition costs of the Mydrane® (£18,000 by year vs. £3,330 for eye drops) were balanced by substantial reductions in mainly nurses' costs and time, plus a smaller contribution from savings in surgeons' costs (£20,511) and lower costs associated with auxiliary dilation (£410 due to avoidance of additional dilation methods). Results of the sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the model to the variation of inputs. Except for the duration of one session of eye drop instillation and the cost of Mydrane®, Mydrane® achieved an incremental cost gain compared to tropicamide/phenylephrine eye drops. CONCLUSIONS: Despite a higher acquisition cost of Mydrane®, the budget impact of Mydrane® on hospital budgets is neutral. Mydrane® offers a promising alternative to traditional regimes using eye drops, allowing for a better patient flow and optimisation of the surgery schedule with neutral budget impact.

Mydriasert pupillary dilation for cataract surgery: an economic and clinical study.

BACKGROUND: Mydriasert is an insoluble ophthalmic insert indicated for mydriasis prior to cataract surgery, which gradually releases the active ingredients: tropicamide (0.25 mg) and phenylephrine (5.38 mg). This study aimed to evaluate the cost of Mydriasert compared with conventional mydriatic eye drops to induce pupil dilation prior to cataract surgery using a budget impact model. METHODS: A cohort-based, decision tree, budget impact model was developed to estimate the drug, consumable and staff costs for achieving mydriasis with Mydriasert compared to mydriatic eye drops (tropicamide [1%] plus phenylephrine [10%]). Insights from structured interviews with clinicians (n = 5) experienced in using both Mydriasert and mydriatic eye drops and results from the current clinical study of patients undergoing cataract surgery (n = 144) at a Greater London district general hospital were used to obtain key input parameters for the model, and to validate the model approach. RESULTS: The base case analysis in a cohort of 1763 patients undergoing cataract surgery showed that when Mydriasert substituted mydriatic eye drops, annual total costs decreased by 18% and annual total nurse time decreased from 235.1 hours to 44.1 hours over one year (2012-2013). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that despite its higher unit cost than mydriatic eye drops, Mydriasert resulted in overall savings in health-care costs, mainly associated with reduced nursing time. The economic model developed could assist National Health Service managers and local payers to estimate the budget impact of the introduction of Mydriasert into different clinical settings.

Malleable penile prosthesis is a cost-effective treatment for refractory ischemic priapism.

INTRODUCTION: Refractory ischemic priapism (RIP) can be difficult to treat, consuming significant healthcare-related resources. Acute insertion of a malleable penile prosthesis (MPP) has been reported as an effective therapy that treats the priapism and restores sexual function. AIM: We report our 6-year, urban public hospital experience with acute insertion of MPP in patients with RIP. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the records of patients receiving MPPs for RIP from 2007 to 2013. Data analyzed included duration of erection, number of emergency room (ER) visits, hospital admissions, days of hospitalization, and postoperative course. Costs were estimated using standard Medicare reimbursement rates. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Healthcare-related costs of treatment of RIP episodes in men presenting to our institution. RESULTS: During the study period, 14 men underwent MPP placement acutely for refractory priapism. Thirteen presented with RIP, and one had stuttering priapism over a 14-day hospitalization. Etiologies included sickle cell anemia (4/13, 29%), medication-induced (3/14, 21%), and idiopathic (7/14, 50%). Average preoperative duration of RIP was 82 hours with considerable consumption of health-care resources (average US $83,818 estimated cost, 4 ER visits [range 1-27], 2 hospital admissions [range 1-5], 1.5 shunt procedures [range 1-3], 5 irrigation and drainage procedures using phenylephrine injection [range 2-20], and 5 hospital admission days [range 2-14]). All patients were discharged within 24 hours of MPP surgery. CONCLUSIONS: The management of RIP is associated with multiple ER visits, prolonged hospital admissions, and significant resource utilization. MPP insertion is efficacious for the immediate resolution of refractory priapism, with potential cost and resource benefits.

Co-phenylcaine Forte spray: innovative ways of minimising cost.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether multiple-use Co-phenylcaine Forte® spray was more cost-effective than single-use vials. METHODS: A literature review was conducted to determine the risk of cross-contamination associated with multiple-use topical nasal anaesthetic spray. The costs of multiple-use Co-phenylcaine Forte and single-use co-phenylcaine were compared, and potential savings were calculated. The cost of procuring these drugs from other sources was also examined. RESULTS: Switching to multiple-use Co-phenylcaine Forte spray would lead to at least 40 per cent savings if bought from our local retailer. Potential savings of more than 70 per cent could be made if the drugs were procured from sources other than our local distributor. CONCLUSION: Multiple-use Co-phenylcaine Forte spray is safe to use and more cost-effective than single-use vials. This paper illustrates how money can be saved within the National Health Service through changes in drug procurement. Similar cost savings to those calculated for our department could be made in other ENT departments nationally, depending on their annual consumption of co-phenylcaine.

Study of microbial spread when using multiple-use nasal anaesthetic spray.

BACKGROUND: Current economic constraints have led to the emergence of reusable anaesthetic sprays with replacement nozzles (Xylocaine) as an alternative to disposable anaesthetic solutions (Co-phenylcaine) for rhinological procedures. The former costs 213.84 per year vers12,047.69 for the latter, at equivocal doses. However, research regarding the sterility of such instruments is limited. The aim of this in vitro study was to determine whether bottles of Xylocaine could pose a risk of cross-infection to patients. METHODS: Two techniques were used. The first was to introduce nozzles into methylene blue and fluorescein dyes, and then analysing the anaesthetic solutions using spectrophotometry for assessment of colour change indicating retrograde contamination. The second method involved spraying Xylocaine into cultures of Staphylococcus aureus with concurrent nozzle changes. This was repeated over a 36-day-period. Sterility checks were performed on the Xylocaine before and after inoculation into the culture. RESULTS: None of the anaesthetic solutions showed the presence of dyed saline following spectrophotometric analysis. No S. aureus was isolated from any of the 30 spray bottles cultures over the 36-day trial period. CONCLUSION: It was demonstrated that using the Xylocaine spray with disposable nozzles for each patient should not pose a cross infection risk to patients.

Controlling hypertension and hypotension immediately post stroke (CHHIPS)--a randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of acute pressor and depressor blood pressure (BP) manipulation on 2-week death and dependency following acute stroke and investigate the safety and efficacy of such treatments. DESIGN: A multicentre, prospective, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled titrated-dose trial. SETTING: Five hospitals in England. PARTICIPANTS: Patients over 18 years admitted to hospital with a clinical diagnosis of suspected stroke and either (1) symptom onset < 36 hours and hypertension, defined as systolic BP (SBP) < 160 mmHg (depressor arm), or (2) symptom onset < 12 hours and hypotension, defined as SBP < or = 140 mmHg (pressor arm). INTERVENTIONS: Patients were allocated to either the pressor or the depressor arm depending on blood pressure at randomisation. The ratio of allocation to active intervention versus matched placebo was 2:1 for the depressor arm and 1:1 for the pressor arm. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary end point was death and dependency at 2 weeks, with dependency defined as a modified Rankin score < 3. Secondary end points were the safety of acute pressor (0-12 hours post stroke) and depressor (0-36 hours post stroke) BP manipulation in stroke patients; whether effects of BP reduction are influenced by stroke type (ischaemic versus haemorrhagic); whether alternative routes for administration of antihypertensive therapy (including sublingual and intravenous) are effective in dysphagic stroke patients; whether effects of BP manipulation are influenced by the time to treatment; and the short- and medium-term cost-effectiveness of such therapy in the acute post-stroke period on subsequent disability or death. RESULTS: 180 patients were recruited over the 36-month trial period, 179 in the depressor arm and one in the pressor arm (who received placebo). No significant difference was found in death or dependency at 2 weeks between those receiving active depressor treatment with lisinopril or labetalol and those receiving placebo, although numbers recruited to the trial were lower than projected. Active treatment was not associated with an increase in early neurological deterioration despite significantly greater reductions in BP at 24 hours and 2 weeks with active therapy compared with placebo. Active treatment was generally well tolerated and treatment discontinuation rates were similar in active and placebo groups. Survival analysis showed that the active treatment group had a lower mortality at 3 months than the placebo group (p = 0.05). The pressor arm was closed early because of problems with recruitment, so no conclusions can be drawn regarding this therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Oral and sublingual lisinopril and oral and intravenous labetalol are effective BP-lowering agents in acute cerebral infarction and haemorrhage and do not increase the likelihood of early neurological deterioration. The study was not sufficiently powered to detect a difference in disability or death at 2 weeks. However, the 3-month difference in mortality in favour of active treatment is of interest, although care must be taken in interpretation of the results. Further work is needed to confirm this and to assess whether there are differences in the effectiveness of labetalol compared with lisinopril in terms of reducing death or dependency after acute stroke, and whether the introduction of treatment post stroke earlier than was achieved here would be of greater benefit.