Economic burden of stroke: a systematic review on post-stroke care.

OBJECTIVES: Stroke is a leading cause for disability and morbidity associated with increased economic burden due to treatment and post-stroke care (PSC). The aim of our study is to provide information on resource consumption for PSC, to identify relevant cost drivers, and to discuss potential information gaps. METHODS: A systematic literature review on economic studies reporting PSC-associated data was performed in PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus/Elsevier and Cochrane databases, Google Scholar and gray literature ranging from January 2000 to August 2016. Results for post-stroke interventions (treatment and care) were systematically extracted and summarized in evidence tables reporting study characteristics and economic outcomes. Economic results were converted to 2015 US Dollars, and the total cost of PSC per patient month (PM) was calculated. RESULTS: We included 42 studies. Overall PSC costs (inpatient/outpatient) were highest in the USA ($4850/PM) and lowest in Australia ($752/PM). Studies assessing only outpatient care reported the highest cost in the United Kingdom ($883/PM), and the lowest in Malaysia ($192/PM). Fifteen different segments of specific services utilization were described, in which rehabilitation and nursing care were identified as the major contributors. CONCLUSION: The highest PSC costs were observed in the USA, with rehabilitation services being the main cost driver. Due to diversity in reporting, it was not possible to conduct a detailed cost analysis addressing different segments of services. Further approaches should benefit from the advantages of administrative and claims data, focusing on inpatient/outpatient PSC cost and its predictors, assuring appropriate resource allocation.

Safety of interferon-free therapies for chronic hepatitis C: a network meta-analysis.

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE: Interferon-free (IFN-free) therapies for hepatitis C virus (HCV) have been developed to provide more effective, tolerable and safer therapeutic strategies. To date, no network meta-analysis (NMA) evaluating the safety profile of these regimens has been performed. This systematic review and NMA aimed to evaluate safety outcomes of IFN-free treatment options for chronic hepatitis C. METHODS: A systematic review was performed according to PRISMA and Cochrane recommendations. A literature search was conducted in PubMed/Medline, Scopus, Cochrane Library, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts and Web of Science electronic databases and included only randomized clinical trials that provided safety outcomes of interest of evaluated second-generation direct-acting antivirals: incidence of any adverse events (AEs) and serious AE. NMA allowed estimating probability for the relative safety of the interventions. A consistency model was used to draw conclusions about relative safety of treatments, presented as odds ratio (OR) and corresponding 95% credible interval (CrI). RESULTS: Fifty-one clinical trials were included (13 089 participants). Most participants had hepatitis C genotype 1 virus (76%) and were treated for 12 weeks. Two NMAs were built to investigate the incidence of AEs and serious AEs, comparing 13 and 10 IFN-free treatment options, respectively. For the outcome incidence of AEs, few significant differences were observed, which were explained by the presence of RBV. Elbasvir with grazoprevir and placebo were both safer than ombitasvir in combination with paritaprevir, ritonavir, daclatasvir plus RBV [ORs with 95% Crl of 4·09 (1·17-14·09) and 2·40 (1·19-4·77), respectively] and sofosbuvir with RBV [ORs with 95% Crl of 0·22 (0·07-0·72) and 2·69 (1·53-4·80), respectively]. Furthermore, elbasvir with grazoprevir was safer than sofosbuvir used with velpatasvir and RBV [OR 0·19 (95% CrI 0·03-0·98)]; ombitasvir in combination with paritaprevir, ritonavir, daclatasvir was safer than the same therapy but combined with RBV [OR 2·14 (95% CrI 1·09-4·44)]; and sofosbuvir used with velpatasvir was safer than sofosbuvir with RBV [OR 2·07 (95% CrI 1·13-3·79)]. Elbasvir with grazoprevir (50%) followed by placebo (28%) had the highest probabilities of less AEs. No significant differences were observed for serious AE outcomes. WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis included a large number of therapies. Small differences were observed in any AEs, but not in serious AEs.