Approximation to the economic cost of healthcare for hypertensive patients diagnosed with COVID-19

Introduction

Many researchers have focused their studies on hypertension due to its over-representation among COVID-19 patients. Both retrospective and observational studies conducted close to the Wuhan area have reported that hypertension is the most common comorbidity observed in patients affected by COVID-19.

Objective

Our objective is that patients with arterial hypertension have a worse prognosis in terms of evolution leading to higher costs.

Methods

A retrospective cross-sectional study was conducted. A total of 3,581 patients from La Paz University Hospital (LPUH) during the period between 15 July 2020 and 31 July 2020 were included in this study.

Results

It should be noted that 40.71% of the patients were hypertensive. As expected, hypertension was associated with men, among whom we observed a higher prevalence and a higher age (median age of 77 years (IQI: 65-85) versus 52 years (IQI: 37-64), p-value < 0.001). Hypertensive patients had a higher prevalence of dyspnea (52.14% vs. 47.15%, p-value = 0.004) and altered awareness (14.89% vs. 4.30%, p-value <0.001). The non-parametric Kaplan-Meier curve estimates the survival of patients in the two study groups. We can see how patients with hypertension have a higher associated mortality, with the difference being statistically significant, p-value (log-rank) = 0.004. Only for the appearance of complications during hospitalization, the group of hypertensive patients reached the figure of €1,355,901.71 compared to the total of 421,403.48 € for normotensive patients.

Conclusion

Our study shows the worse clinical evolution of patients with COVID-19 in terms of associated morbidity and mortality. It also shows that the cost of managing patients with hypertension is greater than that of managing normotensive patients.

Economic Justification Analysis of Minimally Invasive versus Conventional Aortic Valve Replacement

There is no definitive consensus about the cost-effectiveness of minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (AVR) (MI-AVR) compared to conventional AVR (C-AVR). The aim of this study was to compare the rate of postoperative complications and total hospital costs of MI-AVR versus C-AVR overall and by the type of aortic prosthesis (biological or mechanical). Our single-center retrospective study included 324 patients over 18 years old who underwent elective isolated primary AVR with standard stented AV prosthesis at the Institute for Cardiovascular Diseases "Dedinje" between January 2019 and December 2019. Reintervention, emergencies, combined surgical interventions, and patients with sutureless valves were excluded. In both MI-AVR and C-AVR, mechanical valve implantation contributed to overall reduction of hospital costs with equal efficacy. The cost-effectiveness ratio indicated that C-AVR is cheaper and yielded a better clinical outcome with mechanical valve implantation (67.17 vs. 69.5). In biological valve implantation, MI-AVR was superior. MI-AVR patients had statistically significantly higher LVEF and a lower Euro SCORE than C-AVR patients (Mann-Whitney U-test, p = 0.002 and p = 0.002, respectively). There is a slight advantage to MI-AVR vs. C-AVR, since it costs EUR 9.44 more to address complications that may arise. Complications (mortality, early reoperation, cerebrovascular insult, pacemaker implantation, atrial fibrillation, AV block, systemic inflammatory response syndrome, wound infection) were less frequent in the MI-AVR, making MI-AVR more economically justified than C-AVR (18% vs. 22.1%).

Healthcare resource utilization among patients with cold agglutinin disease in Denmark

OBJECTIVES

Cold agglutinin disease (CAD) is a rare form of autoimmune hemolytic anemia that may manifest in complement-mediated chronic hemolytic anemia, profound fatigue, and transient agglutination-mediated circulatory symptoms. This study compared the healthcare resource utilization (HRU) of patients with CAD with a matched non-CAD comparison cohort using national Danish health registry data.

METHODS

All cases of CAD were identified from 1 January 1999 to 30 June 2016, in the Danish National Patient Registry using the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, discharge diagnosis codes. A subcohort of patients with primary CAD was identified based on the absence of secondary predisposing concomitant diseases. CAD cases were matched to individuals without CAD from the general population based on birth year, sex, and 19 disease categories of the Charlson Comorbidity Index. Comparative analyses assessed inpatient hospitalizations, outpatient clinic visits, emergency room visits, transfusion use, and expensive drug use between cohorts 6 months before and 12 months after the admission date of the first hospital visit with CAD diagnosis (index date).

RESULTS

A total of 104 patients with CAD were matched to 1003 comparison cohort members. Throughout the 12 months after the index date, patients with CAD were more likely to have at least one inpatient hospitalization (odds ratio [OR], 3.9; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.5-6.0), outpatient clinic visit (OR, 17.2; 95% CI, 6.8-43.1), and blood transfusion (OR, 93.0; 95% CI, 33.3-259.8) than matched comparisons. HRU was similarly higher among patients with CAD than matched comparisons during the 6 months before the index date. Findings were similar among patients with primary CAD.

CONCLUSIONS

Characterization of HRU among European patients with CAD has not previously been conducted. This study shows that patients with CAD utilize significant resources in Denmark. Increased HRU uses among patients with CAD before diagnosis presents opportunities for earlier diagnosis and management.

Current challenges for assessing the long-term clinical benefit of cancer immunotherapy: a multi-stakeholder perspective

Immuno-oncologics (IOs) differ from chemotherapies as they prime the patient’s immune system to attack the tumor, rather than directly destroying cancer cells. The IO mechanism of action leads to durable responses and prolonged survival in some patients. However, providing robust evidence of the long-term benefits of IOs at health technology assessment (HTA) submission presents several challenges for manufacturers. The aim of this article was to identify, analyze, categorize, and further explore the key challenges that regulators, HTA agencies, and payers commonly encounter when assessing the long-term benefits of IO therapies. Insights were obtained from an international, multi-stakeholder steering committee (SC) and expert panels comprising of payers, economists, and clinicians. The selected individuals were tasked with developing a summary of challenges specific to IOs in demonstrating their long-term benefits at HTA submission. The SC and expert panels agreed that standard methods used to assess the long-term benefit of anticancer drugs may have limitations for IO therapies. Three key areas of challenges were identified: (1) lack of a disease model that fully captures the mechanism of action and subsequent patient responses; (2) estimation of longer-term outcomes, including a lack of agreement on ideal methods of survival analyses and extrapolation of survival curves; and (3) data limitations at the time of HTA submission, for which surrogate survival end points and real-world evidence could prove useful. A summary of the key challenges facing manufacturers when submitting evidence at HTA submission was developed, along with further recommendations for manufacturers in what evidence to produce. Despite almost a decade of use, there remain significant challenges around how best to demonstrate the long-term benefit of checkpoint inhibitor-based IOs to HTA agencies, clinicians, and payers. Manufacturers can potentially meet or mitigate these challenges with a focus on strengthening survival analysis methodology. Approaches to doing this include identifying reliable biomarkers, intermediate and surrogate end points, and the use of real-world data to inform and validate long-term survival projections. Wider education across all stakeholders—manufacturers, payers, and clinicians—in considering the long-term survival benefit with IOs is also important.

Impact of COVID-19 outbreak on cancer immunotherapy in Italy: a survey of young oncologists

Background

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has overwhelmed the health systems worldwide. Data regarding the impact of COVID-19 on cancer patients (CPs) undergoing or candidate for immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are lacking. We depicted the practice and adaptations in the management of patients with solid tumors eligible or receiving ICIs during the COVID-19 pandemic, with a special focus on Campania region.

Methods

This survey (25 questions), promoted by the young section of SCITO (Società Campana di ImmunoTerapia Oncologica) Group, was circulated among Italian young oncologists practicing in regions variously affected by the pandemic: high (group 1), medium (group 2) and low (group 3) prevalence of SARS-CoV-2–positive patients. For Campania region, the physician responders were split into those working in cancer centers (CC), university hospitals (UH) and general hospitals (GH). Percentages of agreement, among High (H) versus Medium (M) and versus Low (L) group for Italy and among CC, UH and GH for Campania region, were compared by using Fisher’s exact tests for dichotomous answers and χ² test for trends relative to the questions with 3 or more options.

Results

This is the first Italian study to investigate the COVID-19 impact on cancer immunotherapy, unique in its type and very clear in the results. The COVID-19 pandemic seemed not to affect the standard practice in the prescription and delivery of ICIs in Italy. Telemedicine was widely used. There was high consensus to interrupt immunotherapy in SARS-CoV-2–positive patients and to adopt ICIs with longer schedule interval. The majority of the responders tended not to delay the start of ICIs; there were no changes in supportive treatments, but some of the physicians opted for delaying surgeries (if part of patients’ planned treatment approach). The results from responders in Campania did not differ significantly from the national ones.

Conclusion

Our study highlights the efforts of Italian oncologists to maintain high standards of care for CPs treated with ICIs, regardless the regional prevalence of COVID-19, suggesting the adoption of similar solutions. Research on patients treated with ICIs and experiencing COVID-19 will clarify the safety profile to continue the treatments, thus informing on the most appropriate clinical conducts.

Overestimation of health urgency as a cause for emergency services inappropriate use: Insights from an exploratory economics experiment in Portugal

Increasing visits to emergency departments add strain to public healthcare systems. The misperception of symptoms' severity can partly explain inappropriate use of hospitals' emergency departments by non-urgent patients. This paper focuses on the misperception of symptoms' severity as a cause for the inappropriate use of emergency departments. It explores the role that informing potential patients of the correct severity level can play in correcting this inefficiency. We implement in an incentivised manner an exploratory economic experiment to elicit the degree of severity of five sets of symptoms, corresponding to frequent causes of emergency department visits. The study was setup in Braga, Northern Portugal, recruiting voluntary participants through civic local organisations. We ask participants to indicate the more suitable health service, before and after revealing the true degree of severity. Results show that there is an overestimation of the degree of severity of some clinical profiles, and when confronted with the real severity, in only half of the cases are choices changed to other health services. Although exploratory, this study provides insights into the potential role of health education policies concerning symptoms' severity but it also highlights the limits of such policies. Furthermore, the use of economic experiments can provide meaningful insights for the design of policies addressing demand-side healthcare inefficiencies.

A Framework to Guide Economic Analysis of Advance Care Planning

BACKGROUND

Advance care planning (ACP) is fundamental to guiding medical care at the end of life. Understanding the economic impact of ACP is critical to implementation, but most economic evaluations of ACP focus on only a few actors, such as hospitals.

OBJECTIVE

To develop a framework for understanding and quantifying the economic effects of ACP, particularly its distributional consequences, for use in economic evaluations.

DESIGN

Literature review of economic analyses of ACP and related costs to estimate magnitude and direction of costs and benefits for each actor and how data on these costs and benefits could be obtained or estimated.

RESULTS

ACP can lead to more efficient allocation of resources by reducing low-value care and reallocating resources to high-value care, and can increase welfare by aligning care to patient preferences. This economic framework considers the costs and benefits of ACP that accrue to or are borne by six actors: the patient, the patient's family and caregivers, healthcare providers, acute care settings, subacute and home care settings, and payers. Program implementation costs and nonhealthcare costs, such as time costs borne by patients and caregivers, are included. Findings suggest that out-of-pocket costs for patients and families will likely change if subacute or home care is substituted for acute care, and subacute care utilization is likely to increase while primary healthcare providers and acute care settings may experience heterogeneous effects.

CONCLUSIONS

A comprehensive economic evaluation of ACP should consider how costs and benefits accrue to different actors.

Readiness for Implementation of Lung Cancer Screening. A National Survey of Veterans Affairs Pulmonologists

RATIONALE

To mitigate the potential harms of screening, professional societies recommend that lung cancer screening be conducted in multidisciplinary programs with the capacity to provide comprehensive care, from screening through pulmonary nodule evaluation to treatment of screen-detected cancers. The degree to which this standard can be met at the national level is unknown.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the readiness of clinical facilities in a national healthcare system for implementation of comprehensive lung cancer screening programs, as compared with the ideal described in policy recommendations.

METHODS

This was a cross-sectional, self-administered survey of staff pulmonologists in pulmonary outpatient clinics in Veterans Health Administration facilities.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

The facility-level response rate was 84.1% (106 of 126 facilities with pulmonary clinics); 88.7% of facilities showed favorable provider perceptions of the evidence for lung cancer screening, and 73.6% of facilities had a favorable provider-perceived local context for screening implementation. All elements of the policy-recommended infrastructure for comprehensive screening programs were present in 36 of 106 facilities (34.0%); the most common deficiencies were the lack of on-site positron emission tomography scanners or radiation oncology services. Overall, 26.5% of Veterans Health Administration facilities were ideally prepared for lung cancer screening implementation (44.1% if the policy recommendations for on-site positron emission tomography scanners and radiation oncology services were waived).

CONCLUSIONS

Many facilities may be less than ideally positioned for the implementation of comprehensive lung cancer screening programs. To ensure safe, effective screening, hospitals may need to invest resources or coordinate care with facilities that can offer comprehensive care for screening through downstream evaluation and treatment of screen-detected cancers.

Publicly funded practice-oriented clinical trials: of importance for healthcare payers

AIM

Many questions of relevance to patients/society are not answered by industry-sponsored clinical trials. We consider whether there are benefits to governments in funding practice-oriented clinical trials.

METHODOLOGY

A literature search including publications on institutions' websites was performed and supplemented with information gathered from (inter)national stakeholders.

RESULTS

Areas were identified where public funding of clinical trials is of importance for society, such as head-to-head comparisons or medical areas where companies have no motivation to invest. The available literature suggests publicly funded research programs could provide a positive return on investment. The main hurdles (e.g., sufficient funding and absence of equipoise) and success factors (e.g., selection of research questions and research infrastructure) for the successful conduct of publicly funded trials were identified.

CONCLUSION

Governments should see public funding of pragmatic practice-oriented clinical trials as a good opportunity to improve the selection and quality of treatments and stimulate efficient use of limited resources.

Health and Economic Implications of National Treatment Coverage for Cardiovascular Disease in India: Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

BACKGROUND

Whether to cover cardiovascular disease costs is an increasingly pressing question for low- and middle-income countries. We sought to identify the impact of expanding national insurance to cover primary prevention, secondary prevention, and tertiary treatment for cardiovascular disease in India.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We incorporated data from coverage experiments into a validated microsimulation model of myocardial infarction and stroke in India to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of alternate coverage strategies. Coverage of primary prevention alone saved 3.6 million disability-adjusted life-years (DALY) per annum at an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $469 per DALY averted when compared with the status quo of no coverage. Coverage of primary and secondary preventions was dominated by a strategy of covering primary prevention and tertiary treatment, which prevented 6.6 million DALYs at an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $2241 per DALY averted, when compared with that of primary prevention alone. The combination of all 3 categories yielded the greatest impact at an incremental cost per DALY averted of $5588 when compared with coverage of primary prevention plus tertiary treatment. When compared with the status quo of no coverage, coverage of all 3 categories of prevention/treatment yielded an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $1331 per DALY averted. In sensitivity analyses, coverage of primary preventive treatments remained cost-effective even if adherence and access to therapy were low, but tertiary coverage would require avoiding unnecessary procedures to remain cost-effective.

CONCLUSIONS

Coverage of all 3 major types of cardiovascular treatment would be expected to have high impact and reasonable cost-effectiveness in India across a broad spectrum of access and adherence levels.

Modelling the efficiency of local versus central provision of intravenous thrombolysis after acute ischemic stroke

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Prehospital redirection of stroke patients to a regional center is used as a strategy to maximize the provision of intravenous thrombolysis. We developed a model to quantify the benefit of redirection away from local services that were already providing thrombolysis.

METHODS

A microsimulation using hospital and ambulance data from consecutive emergency admissions to 10 local acute stroke units estimated the effect of redirection to 2 regional neuroscience centers. Modeled outcomes reflected additional journey time and accuracy of stroke identification in the prehospital phase, and the relative efficiency of patient selection and door-needle time for each local site compared with the nearest regional neuroscience center.

RESULTS

Thrombolysis was received by 223/1884 emergency admissions. Based on observed site performance, 68 additional patients would have been treated after theoretical redirection of 1269 true positive cases and 363 stroke mimics to the neuroscience center. Over 5 years redirection of this cohort generated 12.6 quality-adjusted life years at a marginal cost of £6730 ($10,320, €8347). The average additional cost of a quality-adjusted life year gain was £534 ($819, €673).

CONCLUSIONS

Under these specific circumstances, redirection would have improved outcomes from thrombolysis at little additional cost.