Short- and long-term health consequences of sleep disruption.

Sleep plays a vital role in brain function and systemic physiology across many body systems. Problems with sleep are widely prevalent and include deficits in quantity and quality of sleep; sleep problems that impact the continuity of sleep are collectively referred to as sleep disruptions. Numerous factors contribute to sleep disruption, ranging from lifestyle and environmental factors to sleep disorders and other medical conditions. Sleep disruptions have substantial adverse short- and long-term health consequences. A literature search was conducted to provide a nonsystematic review of these health consequences (this review was designed to be nonsystematic to better focus on the topics of interest due to the myriad parameters affected by sleep). Sleep disruption is associated with increased activity of the sympathetic nervous system and hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis, metabolic effects, changes in circadian rhythms, and proinflammatory responses. In otherwise healthy adults, short-term consequences of sleep disruption include increased stress responsivity, somatic pain, reduced quality of life, emotional distress and mood disorders, and cognitive, memory, and performance deficits. For adolescents, psychosocial health, school performance, and risk-taking behaviors are impacted by sleep disruption. Behavioral problems and cognitive functioning are associated with sleep disruption in children. Long-term consequences of sleep disruption in otherwise healthy individuals include hypertension, dyslipidemia, cardiovascular disease, weight-related issues, metabolic syndrome, type 2 diabetes mellitus, and colorectal cancer. All-cause mortality is also increased in men with sleep disturbances. For those with underlying medical conditions, sleep disruption may diminish the health-related quality of life of children and adolescents and may worsen the severity of common gastrointestinal disorders. As a result of the potential consequences of sleep disruption, health care professionals should be cognizant of how managing underlying medical conditions may help to optimize sleep continuity and consider prescribing interventions that minimize sleep disruption.

Do payers value rarity? An analysis of the relationship between disease rarity and orphan drug prices in Europe.

Background and Objective: Orphan drugs have been a highlight of discussions due to their higher prices than non-orphan drugs. There is currently no European consensus on the method of value assessment for orphan drugs. This study assessed the relationship between the prevalence of rare diseases and the annual treatment cost of orphan drugs in France, Germany, Italy, Norway, Spain, Sweden, and UK. Methods: Approved orphan drugs and prevalence data were extracted from the European Medicines Agency website. Annual treatment costs were calculated using ex-factory price. Simple regression was used to analyse the relationship between costs and prevalence. A specific bivariate analysis was performed for the rarest diseases (≤1 per 10,000). Results: 120 drugs were analysed. Prevalence ranged from 0.001 to 5 per 10,000 (mean 1.24, median 1). Annual treatment costs per patient ranged from €755 to €1,051,956 (mean €100,000, median €39,303). Results show a statistically significant inverse correlation between annual treatment cost and disease prevalence in all countries (France: r = -0.370, p = 0.002; Germany: r = -0.365, p = 0.002; Italy: r = -0.340, p = 0.002; Spain: r = -0.316, p = 0.041; UK: r = -0.358, p = 0.0004; Sweden: r = -0.414, p = 0.014; Norway: r = -0.367, p = 0.002). When analysis was focused on the rarest diseases, a stronger correlation exists in all countries (France: r = -0.525, Germany: r = -0.482, Italy: r = -0.497, Spain: r = -0.531, UK: r = -0.436, Sweden: r = -0.455, Norway: r = -0.466; all p < 0.05 except Sweden p = 0.077). Conclusions: This study shows an inverse correlation between annual treatment cost and prevalence with high statistical significance in the studied countries. Although pricing is a complex process where different attributes are assessed, this study supports the idea that payers value rarity in pricing decisions.

The cost utility of autologous chondrocytes implantation using ChondroCelect® in symptomatic knee cartilage lesions in Belgium.

BACKGROUND: Knee cartilage lesions increase the risk of developing osteoarthritis (OA), and may eventually result in a total knee replacement (TKR). There is currently no consensus on the optimal treatment of cartilage lesions. ChondroCelect® (CC) is a cell-based therapy approved for use in autologous chondrocytes implantation (ACI) to treat symptomatic cartilage defects of the femoral condyle. Its capacity to safely restore good-quality cartilage was demonstrated in a randomized controlled trial (RCT) versus the surgical procedure microfracture (MFX). OBJECTIVE: This study investigated the cost utility of CC used in ACI compared with MFX to treat symptomatic knee cartilage lesions in Belgium. METHODS: A decision tree model comparing CC with MFX over a 40-year horizon was developed in TreeAge Pro™. The key timepoints of the model were (i) clinical assessment 5 years after initial intervention (success or no success, with or without re-operation); (ii) development of OA at 15 years (yes/no); (iii) need for TKR at 20 years (yes/no); and (iv) need for prosthesis revision at 35 years (yes/no). Clinical data provided by the RCT of CC versus MFX were the clinical success (response) rate based on the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) at 36 months (82.9% vs 62.0%; p = 0.048) and the proportion of good structural repair/presence of hyaline cartilage based on International Cartilage Repair Society (ICRS II) visual item at 12 months (44.9% vs 23.2%; p = 0.023). Utility scores by surgery outcome were derived from the SF-36 questionnaire responses collected in the RCT. Conservative assumptions related to the incidences of OA, TKR and prosthesis revision relied on a literature search. A patient chart review (n = 82) provided follow-up costs by surgery outcome. National tariffs were applied to direct medical resources used (healthcare payer perspective, year 2008 costs). Annual discounting was applied to costs (3%) and effects (1.5%) as recommended by the Belgian pharmacoeconomic guidelines. RESULTS: The incremental cost per QALY gained for CC compared with MFX was €16,229, with a difference in costs of €20,802 and 1.282 QALYs gained. Sensitivity analyses indicated that the key model drivers were the proportion of patients with hyaline cartilage and the correlation between hyaline cartilage formation and later avoidance of OA. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses showed robustness of the results, with 80% of the simulations below the usual UK National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) threshold of €22,000 per QALY. CONCLUSIONS: Assuming a good correlation between high-quality cartilage repair and avoidance of OA at a later stage, the benefits of the cell therapy CC over MFX in terms of QALYs gained and OA-related costs avoided appear real. Further research is required to explore long-term effects of cartilage repair and reduce uncertainty on quality of life of patients with OA before and after joint replacement.

Additional to caudal bupivacaine preemptive oral ibuprofen does not improve postoperative pain, nausea or vomiting, and resumption of normal activities in children after ambulatory pediatric urologic surgery.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the possible advantage of administration of preemptive oral ibuprofen in children after ambulatory pediatric urologic surgery such as penile surgery (circumcision and hypospadias repair) and inguinal surgery (communicating hydrocele and orchidopexy), a study was performed on the experience of postoperative pain, nausea or vomiting, and resumption of normal activities such as normal sleep and play activity. In addition, this study has validated a method of measurement of pain and resumption of normal activities in children. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In a prospective, randomized, double-blind study, 66 prepubertal boys (0-12 years) underwent an ambulatory pediatric urological intervention. One hour prior to surgery, the experimental group received 10 mg/kg oral ibuprofen along with their usual premedication (<8 years midazolam 0.5 mg/kg PO or rectal; >8 years or >30 kg alprazolam 0.5 mg, 0.25-0.5 mg PO), whereas the children of the control group received only the usual premedication. Anesthesia was achieved with Sevorane (Sevoflurane) inhalation induction (Sevoflurane 8% in 50% N(2)O/50% O(2)) and a locoregional caudal block (0.5-1.0 ml/kg levobupivacaine 0.25% with a maximum of 30 ml). Immediate postoperative pain was assessed by the child, the parents and a single observer using the Faces Pain Scale and the CHEOPS behavioral scale (Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario Pain Scale). Vomiting and nausea were also assessed. On the first and second postoperative day the same variables were evaluated by the child and the parents, as well as quality of sleep and play, and need for pain medication. RESULTS: No difference in the experience of pain was found at any point after the operation between the experimental and control groups; moreover, the consumption of pain medication postoperatively did not differ between the two groups. There was also no difference in the incidence of vomiting and nausea in the hospital or at home (p>0.05). The method for measuring pain and normal activities was validated as the assessments of the parents, children and the investigators were concordant throughout the study. CONCLUSIONS: Children who received preoperative oral ibuprofen (10 mg/kg) did not experience less pain or less nausea and vomiting, and did not show a better pattern of sleep and play up to 2 days after ambulatory pediatric urologic surgery than children who did not receive this medication.