Our latest research, all in one place. Browse our collection of journal articles, reports and conference proceedings to see how we’re contributing to HEOR research. Remember to:
Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a chronic, auto-immune condition that imposes a high burden on individuals, society, and the healthcare system. Approximately 4.4% of adults and up to 18.6% of children/adolescents have AD in Europe, with 20% of all cases accounting for moderate-to-severe forms. This form of the condition in adults results in annual societal costs across Europe of an estimated €30 billion; €15.2 billion related to missed workdays or reduced work productivity, €10.1 billion related to direct medical costs and €4.7 billion related to personal expenditure of patients/families. AD can also substantially impact physical, emotional, and social quality-of-life. Several studies have shown the debilitating itch-scratch cycle is the main cause of the multifaceted burden, as it causes substantial sleep deprivation and stigmatisation due to the physical appearance of the skin, and confidence issues. These factors lead to psychosocial issues and can cumulate over time and prohibit patients reaching their 'full life potential'. Despite this, many patients with the condition are undertreated, resulting in uncontrolled symptoms and a further strain placed on patients, society, and the economy. The authors of this White Paper comprise the European Atopic Dermatitis Working Group, which is a network of international specialists with expertise in dermatology and healthcare policy decisions. Their programme of action is focused on harnessing their expertise to build consensus, advance research, share knowledge, and ultimately seek to improve AD care outcomes through achieving long-term symptom control. This White Paper presents a systematic evaluation of the overall financial and humanistic burden of moderate-to-severe AD and the current challenges that exist with AD care. It introduces recommendations for how, collaboratively, key stakeholders and policy makers can support improvements in AD management to achieve better disease control, thus reducing the costs and associated burden placed on individuals, society, and the economy.
OBJECTIVES: Healthcare policy makers should ensure optimal patient access to medical nutrition (MN) as part of the management of nutrition-related disorders and conditions. Questions remain whether current healthcare policies reflect the clinical and economic benefits of MN. The objective of this article is to characterize coverage and reimbursement of MN, defined as food for special medical purposes/medical food for a diverse set of countries, including Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, Hong Kong, Italy, Japan, The Netherlands, Singapore, Spain, United Kingdom, and United States.
METHODS: Data sources included published literature and online sources. ISPOR's Nutrition Economics Special Interest Group developed a data collection form to guide data extraction that included reimbursement coverage, years that reimbursement policies were established, and presence of a formal health technology assessment (HTA) for MN technologies.
RESULTS: Reimbursement coverage of MN technologies varied across the countries that were reviewed. All but 3 countries limited coverage to specific formulations of products, regardless of demonstrated clinical benefit. The year that reimbursement policies were established varied across countries (ranging from 1984 to 2017), and only 4 countries regularly update policies. France and Brazil are the only countries with a formal HTA process for MN technologies.
CONCLUSIONS: Most countries have limited MN reimbursement, have not updated reimbursement policies, and lack HTA for MN technologies. These limitations may lead to suboptimal access to MN technologies where they are indicated to manage nutrition-related disorders and conditions, with the potential of negatively affecting patient and healthcare system outcomes.
BACKGROUND: The PARTNER 3 trial demonstrated clinical benefits of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) with the SAPIEN 3 device, over surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis (sSAS) at low risk of surgical mortality. Using PARTNER 3 outcomes and Italy-specific costs data, this cost-utility analysis from the perspective of the Italian National Health System aimed to determine the cost-effectiveness of SAPIEN 3 TAVI versus SAVR in low risk sSAS patients in Italy.
METHODS: A two-stage cost-utility model was developed to estimate changes in both direct healthcare costs and health-related quality of life using TAVI with SAPIEN 3 compared with SAVR. Early adverse events associated with TAVI were captured utilising the PARTNER 3 dataset. These data fed into a Markov model that captured longer-term outcomes of patients, following TAVI or SAVR intervention.
RESULTS: Analysis findings estimated that TAVI with SAPIEN 3 offers benefits over SAVR in terms of increased quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) with only a small increase in costs, representing an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio/QALY gained of €2989 per patient. The results were robust, with TAVI with SAPIEN 3 remaining cost-effective across several scenarios and in probabilistic sensitivity analyses.
CONCLUSIONS: This model demonstrated that TAVI with SAPIEN 3 is likely to be cost effective compared with SAVR for the treatment of patients with sSAS who are at low risk of surgical mortality. These findings can inform policy makers to facilitate policy development in Italy on intervention selection for this patient population.
Monitoring nutritional intake is of clinical value, but few existing tools offer electronic dietary recording, instant nutritional analysis, and a platform connecting healthcare teams with patients that provides timely, personalised support. This feasibility randomised controlled trial tests the usability of 'myfood24 Healthcare', a dietary assessment app and healthcare professional website, in two clinical populations. Patients were recruited from a weight management programme (n21) and from a group of gastroenterology surgery outpatients (n = 27). They were randomised into three groups: standard care, myfood24, or myfood24 + diet optimisation (automated suggestions for dietary improvement). The participants were asked to record their diet at least four times over eight weeks. During the study, healthcare professionals viewed recorded dietary information to facilitate discussions about diet and nutritional targets. The participants provided feedback on usability and acceptability. A total of 48 patients were recruited, and 16 were randomised to each of the three groups. Compliance among app users (n = 32) was reasonable, with 25 (78%) using it at least once and 16 (50%) recording intake for four days or more. Among users, the mean (standard deviation) number of days used was 14.0 (17.5), and the median (interquartile range) was six (2.5-17.0) over 2 months. Feedback questionnaires were completed by only 23 of 46 participants (50%). The mean System Usability Score (n = 16) was 59 (95% confidence interval, 48-70). Patient and healthcare professional feedback indicates a need for more user training and the improvement of some key app features such as the food search function. This feasibility study shows that myfood24 Healthcare is acceptable for patients and healthcare professionals. These data will inform app refinements and its application in a larger clinical effectiveness trial.
Actinic keratosis (AK) is a chronic skin condition that may progress to cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma. We conducted a systematic review of efficacy and safety for key treatments for AK of the face and scalp, including the novel 5-day tirbanibulin 1% ointment. MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, clinical trial registries and regulatory body websites were searched. The review included 46 studies, of which 35 studies included interventions commonly used in Europe and were sufficiently homogenous to inform a Bayesian network meta-analysis of complete clearance against topical placebo or vehicle. The network meta-analysis revealed the following odds ratios and 95% credible intervals: cryosurgery 13.4 (6.2-30.3); diclofenac 3% 2.9 (1.9-4.3); fluorouracil 0.5% + salicylic acid 7.6 (4.6-13.5); fluorouracil 4% 30.3 (9.1-144.7); fluorouracil 5% 35.0 (10.2-164.4); imiquimod 3.75% 8.5 (3.5-22.4); imiquimod 5% 17.9 (9.1-36.6); ingenol mebutate 0.015% 12.5 (8.1-19.9); photodynamic therapy with aminolevulinic acid 24.1 (10.9-52.8); photodynamic therapy with methyl aminolevulinate 11.7 (6.0-21.9); tirbanibulin 1% 11.1 (6.2-20.9). Four sensitivity analyses, from studies assessing efficacy after one treatment cycle only, for =25 cm2 treatment area, after 8 weeks post-treatment, and with single placebo/vehicle node confirmed the findings from the base case. Safety outcomes were assessed qualitatively. These results suggest that tirbanibulin 1% offers a novel treatment for AK, with a single short treatment period, favourable safety profile and efficacy, in line with existing topical treatments available in Europe.
OBJECTIVES: The clinical and cost-saving benefits of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) over surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients with severe aortic stenosis who are at high or intermediate risk of surgical mortality are supported by a growing evidence base. The PARTNER 3 trial (Placement of AoRTic TraNscathetER Valve Trial) demonstrated clinical benefits with SAPIEN 3 TAVI compared with SAVR in selected patients at low risk of surgical mortality. This study uses PARTNER 3 outcomes in combination with a French national hospital claim database to inform a cost-utility model and examine the cost implications of TAVI over SAVR in a low-risk population.
METHODS: A 2-stage cost-utility analysis was developed to estimate changes in both direct healthcare costs and health-related quality of life using TAVI with SAPIEN 3 compared with SAVR. Early adverse events associated with TAVI were captured using the PARTNER 3 data set. These data fed into a Markov model that captured longer-term outcomes of patients, after TAVI or SAVR intervention.
RESULTS: TAVI with SAPIEN 3 offers meaningful benefits over SAVR in providing both cost saving (€12 742 per patient) and generating greater quality-adjusted life-years (0.89 per patient). These results are robust with TAVI with SAPIEN 3 remaining dominant across several scenarios and deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.
CONCLUSIONS: This model demonstrated that TAVI with SAPIEN 3 was dominant compared with SAVR in the treatment of patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis who are at low risk of surgical mortality. These findings should help policy makers in developing informed approaches to intervention selection for this patient population.
There has been no extensive synthesis of studies evaluating the cost of chronic hand eczema (CHE). This review evaluated the societal costs, healthcare resource utilisation, missed work time and job loss due to CHE. MEDLINE and 16 other databases and websites were searched in October 2020 for studies meeting prespecified inclusion criteria. Studies conducted in Europe, Australia, New Zealand or the Americas were included. Two reviewers independently assessed titles and abstracts, and full-text papers published in English between 2000 and 2020, for relevance. Data extraction was carried out by one reviewer and checked by a second reviewer. All data were based on costs between 2001 and 2013 but have been inflated to 2020 prices and converted to US dollars and Euros. A total of 30 studies (reported in 33 publications) were included in the synthesis. Mean total societal costs per year per patient ranged from $2549 (1813) to $10,883 (7738). Pharmacological therapy was, on average, $28.34 (€20.15) per month in Italy and $36.49 (€25.94) per month for emollients in Switzerland. Yearly treatment costs were $599.05 (€425.92) for drugs, including topical corticosteroids, topical calcineurin inhibitors, other topical treatments and oral treatments, and $178.40 for emollients, in Germany. CHE was associated with hospitalisation costs ranging from $81.86 (€58.20) per patient per month (US) to $105.04 (€74.68) per patient per month (Italy) and $639.59 (€454.75) per year (Germany). Up to 57% of patients took sick leave and up to 25% reported job loss/job change due to CHE. This review confirms the significant cost burden of CHE. Given the paucity of studies estimating the monetary costs of absenteeism, presenteeism and job loss associated with CHE, current mean societal costs are likely underestimated. Uncontrolled disease may also lead to increased costs to patients and society.
