Uso de recursos sanitarios y costes asociados al tratamiento antirretroviral de primera línea en España en la era de los inhibidores de la integrasa / Use of health resources and costs associated to first-line antiretroviral therapy in the era of integrase inhibitors

Introducción: El objetivo fue evaluar el uso de recursos sanitarios y costes asociados durante el primer año de tratamiento antirretroviral (TAR) con las pautas de primera línea prescritas más frecuentemente en los pacientes de la cohorte de la Red Española de Investigación en SIDA en la era de los inhibidores de la integrasa. Métodos: Utilizamos un modelo de evaluación de costes en el que el consumo de recursos sanitarios derivados de iniciar tratamiento con cada pauta se estimó utilizando el método Delphi de dos rondas, mediante cuestionario estructurado, en un panel de 35 expertos en VIH. El coste total incluía los costes de TAR, del manejo clínico y del manejo de efectos adversos (EA). Se aplicó la perspectiva del pagador (Sistema Nacional de Salud), considerando solo costes directos. Resultados: En el análisis por intención de tratar, el coste anual varió entre 8.501 Euros para TDF/FTC/EFV y 12.840 Euros para TDF/FTC+RAL. De media, el coste farmacológico supone el 87,6% del coste total, variando entre 83,8 % para TDF/FTC/EFV y 91,1% para TDF/FTC+RAL. El coste del manejo clínico supone el 11,5% del coste total (8,6% para TDF/FTC+RAL y 13,9% para ABC/3TC/DTG). Sólo el 0,9% del coste de la pauta se debe al manejo de EA, más elevados con TDF/FTC/EFV (2,6%) y TDF/FTC+DRV/r (1,1%). Conclusión: El coste para el sistema sanitario del primer año de TAR se debe, fundamentalmente, al precio de los fármacos. Las pautas con menor coste fueron TDF/FTC/EFV, TDF/FTC/RPV y ABC/3TC/DTG, siendo TDF/FTC/EVG/COBI y TDF/FTC+RAL las de coste superior

Introduction: We aimed to evaluate the usage of health resources and the associated costs during the first year of treatment with the most commonly used first-line antiretroviral regimens (ART) in the Cohort of the Spanish AIDS Research Network in the era of integrase inhibitors. Methods: We used a cost evaluation model in which the use of health resources derived from initiating a regimen was estimated using a two-round Delphi method with a structured questionnaire in a pannel of 35 HIV experts. The cost of initiating a regimen included the costs of ART, clinical management and management of adverse effects (AE). The payer perspective (National Health System) was applied. Thus, only direct costs were considered. Results: In an intention-to-treat analysis, the annual cost ranged from 8,501 Euros for TDF/FTC/EFV to 12,840 Euros for TDF / FTC + RAL. On average, the pharmacological cost accounts for 87.6% varying between 83.8% for TDF/FTC/EFV and 91.1% for TDF/FTC+RAL. The cost of clinical management accounts for 11.5% of the total cost, ranging from 8.6% for TDF/FTC+RAL and 13.9% for ABC / 3TC / DTG. Only 0.9% of the total cost is due to management of AE, higher with the use of TDF/FTC/EFV (2.6%) and TDF/FTC+DRV / r (1.1%). Conclusion: The cost for the health system of the first year of antiretroviral treatment is mainly driven by the price of drugs. The regimens with lowest total cost were TDF/FTC/EFV, TDF/FTC/RPV and ABC/3TC/DTG, and the ones with highest total cost were TDF/FTC/EVG/COBI and TDF/FTC+RAL

Barriers to health care services for migrants living with HIV in Spain.

Background: In Spain, migrants are disproportionately affected by HIV and experience high rates of late diagnosis. We investigated barriers to health care access among migrants living with HIV (MLWH) in Spain. Methods: Cross sectional electronic survey of 765 adult HIV-positive migrants recruited within 18 health care settings between July 2013 and July 2015. We collected epidemiological, demographic, behavioral and clinical data. We estimated the prevalence and risk factors of self-reported barriers to health care using multivariable logistic regression. Results: Of those surveyed, 672 (88%) had information on health care access barriers: 23% were women, 63% from Latin America and Caribbean, 14% from Sub-Saharan Africa and 15% had an irregular immigration status. Men were more likely to report barriers than women (24% vs. 14%, P = 0.009). The main barriers were: lengthy waiting times for an appointment (9%) or in the clinic (7%) and lack of a health card (7%). Having an irregular immigration status was a risk factor for experiencing barriers for both men (OR: (4.0 [95%CI: 2.2-7.2]) and women (OR: 10.5 [95%CI: 3.1-34.8]). Men who experienced racial stigma (OR: 3.1 [95%CI: 1.9-5.1]) or food insecurity (OR: 2.1 [95%CI: 1.2-3.4]) were more likely to report barriers. Women who delayed treatment due to medication costs (6.3 [95%CI: 1.3-30.8]) or had a university degree (OR: 5.8 [95%CI: 1.3-25.1]) were more likely to report barriers. Conclusion: Health care barriers were present in one in five5 MLWH, were more common in men and were associated to legal entitlement to access care, perceived stigma and financial constraints.

Aportaciones e inconvenientes de la incorporación de metodología cualitativa en la evaluación de servicios sanitarios. Un caso práctico: la evaluación de una consulta de alta resolución / Advantages and disadvantages of incorporating qualitative methodology in the evaluation of health services. A practical case: evaluation of a high-resolution clinic

Objetivo. En el marco de una evaluación sobre la calidad asistencial en una Unidad de Cardiología de Alta Resolución (UCAR) realizada con técnicas cuantitativas, se analizó la utilidad de incorporar una fase cualitativa a la investigación. Material y métodos. Se realizó una investigación cuantitativa con cuestionario estructurado y selección de sujetos por muestreo aleatorio sistemático (n=320) y una investigación cualitativa mediante entrevistas semiestructuradas a pacientes seleccionados por criterios de conveniencia (n=11), observaciones en el circuito asistencial y una entrevista en grupo con los profesionales de la UCAR. Posteriormente, el equipo de investigación, multidisciplinar, analizó individualmente la información recabada en las fases cuantitativa y cualitativa, evaluando los diferentes resultados obtenidos en ambas fases y los posibles sesgos derivados del uso de métodos cualitativos. Se realizaron tres reuniones siguiendo la técnica «brainstorming», para identificar las diversas aportaciones de cada una de las metodologías empleadas, utilizando diagramas de afinidades. Resultados. La investigación cualitativa permitió profundizar en algunos aspectos concretos del servicio que habían sido recogidos en la fase cuantitativa, matizando los resultados obtenidos en la fase previa, ahondando en las razones de insatisfacción con aspectos específicos, como los tiempos de espera y las infraestructuras disponibles, e identificando cuestiones emergentes del servicio, no evaluadas anteriormente. Conclusiones. Globalmente, la fase cualitativa enriqueció de forma sustantiva los resultados de la investigación. Es adecuado y recomendable incorporar este enfoque metodológico en investigaciones encaminadas a evaluar la calidad del servicio en un determinado contexto sanitario puesto que aporta, de primera mano, la voz del cliente(AU)

Objective. We examined the usefulness of incorporating a qualitative phase in the evaluation of the quality of care in a high-resolution medical service carried out with quantitative methods. Design and methods. A quantitative research was performed using a structured questionnaire and selecting interviewees by systematic randomized sampling methods (n=320). In addition, a qualitative research was carried on through semi-structured interviews with patients selected by convenience criteria (n=11), observations in the care assistance circuit, and a group interview with health professionals working in the service. A multidisciplinary research team conducted an individual analysis of the information collected in both quantitative and qualitative phases. Subsequently, three meetings based on group brainstorming techniques were held to identify the diverse contributions of each of the methodologies employed to the research, using affinity graphs to analyse the different results obtained in both phases and evaluate possible bias arising from the use of qualitative methods. Results. Qualitative research allowed examining specific aspects of the health care service that had been collected in the quantitative phase, harmonizing the results obtained in the previous phase, giving in-depth data on the reasons for patient dissatisfaction with specific aspects, such as waiting times and available infrastructures, and identifying emerging issues of the service which had not been previously assessed. Conclusions. Overall, the qualitative phase enriched the results of the research. It is appropriate and recommendable to incorporate this methodological approach in research aimed at evaluating the quality of the service in specific health care settings, since it is provided first hand, by the voice of the customer(AU)

[Advantages and disadvantages of incorporating qualitative methodology in the evaluation of health services. A practical case: evaluation of a high-resolution clinic]. / Aportaciones e inconvenientes de la incorporación de metodología cualitativa en la evaluación de servicios sanitarios. Un caso práctico: la evaluación de una consulta de alta resolución.

OBJECTIVE: We examined the usefulness of incorporating a qualitative phase in the evaluation of the quality of care in a high-resolution medical service carried out with quantitative methods. DESIGN AND METHODS: A quantitative research was performed using a structured questionnaire and selecting interviewees by systematic randomized sampling methods (n=320). In addition, a qualitative research was carried on through semi-structured interviews with patients selected by convenience criteria (n=11), observations in the care assistance circuit, and a group interview with health professionals working in the service. A multidisciplinary research team conducted an individual analysis of the information collected in both quantitative and qualitative phases. Subsequently, three meetings based on group brainstorming techniques were held to identify the diverse contributions of each of the methodologies employed to the research, using affinity graphs to analyse the different results obtained in both phases and evaluate possible bias arising from the use of qualitative methods. RESULTS: Qualitative research allowed examining specific aspects of the health care service that had been collected in the quantitative phase, harmonizing the results obtained in the previous phase, giving in-depth data on the reasons for patient dissatisfaction with specific aspects, such as waiting times and available infrastructures, and identifying emerging issues of the service which had not been previously assessed. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the qualitative phase enriched the results of the research. It is appropriate and recommendable to incorporate this methodological approach in research aimed at evaluating the quality of the service in specific health care settings, since it is provided first hand, by the voice of the customer.