Cost-Effectiveness of Including a Nurse Specialist in the Treatment of Urinary Incontinence in Primary Care in the Netherlands.

OBJECTIVE: Incontinence is an important health problem. Effectively treating incontinence could lead to important health gains in patients and caregivers. Management of incontinence is currently suboptimal, especially in elderly patients. To optimise the provision of incontinence care a global optimum continence service specification (OCSS) was developed. The current study evaluates the costs and effects of implementing this OCSS for community-dwelling patients older than 65 years with four or more chronic diseases in the Netherlands. METHOD: A decision analytic model was developed comparing the current care pathway for urinary incontinence in the Netherlands with the pathway as described in the OCSS. The new care strategy was operationalised as the appointment of a continence nurse specialist (NS) located with the general practitioner (GP). This was assumed to increase case detection and to include initial assessment and treatment by the NS. The analysis used a societal perspective, including medical costs, containment products (out-of-pocket and paid by insurer), home care, informal care, and implementation costs. RESULTS: With the new care strategy a QALY gain of 0.005 per patient is achieved while saving €402 per patient over a 3 year period from a societal perspective. In interpreting these findings it is important to realise that many patients are undetected, even in the new care situation (36%), or receive care for containment only. In both of these groups no health gains were achieved. CONCLUSION: Implementing the OCSS in the Netherlands by locating a NS in the GP practice is likely to reduce incontinence, improve quality of life, and reduce costs. Furthermore, the study also highlighted that various areas of the continence care process lack data, which would be valuable to collect through the introduction of the NS in a study setting.

Real-world health care costs of relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma during the era of novel cancer agents.

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE: High costs of novel agents increasingly put pressure on limited healthcare budgets. Demonstration of their real-world costs and cost-effectiveness is often required for reimbursement. However, few published economic evaluations of novel agents for multiple myeloma exist. Moreover, existing cost analyses were heavily based on conventionally treated patients. We investigated real-world health care costs of relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma in Dutch daily practice. METHODS: A retrospective medical chart review was conducted for 139 patients treated between January 2001 and May 2009. Total monthly costs attributable to each cost component were described across all regimens and for bortezomib-, thalidomide- and lenalidomide-based treatment regimens. RESULTS: Mean monthly total costs (€3,981) varied depending on the sequence of therapy (range: €442-€31,318). Significant cost drivers across all regimens included costs of therapy and hospital admissions. The acquisition costs for novel agents in particular accounted for 32% of mean total monthly costs. Prognostic factors associated with increased mean total monthly costs in multivariate regression analysis included low platelet counts (P = 0·01) and worsening performance status (P < 0·001). Mean total monthly costs of bortezomib- and lenalidomide-based regimens were significantly higher than those for thalidomide-based regimens in second, third and fourth treatment line. WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSIONS: Real-world costs during treatment of relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma vary greatly. Cost drivers include hospital admissions and acquisition costs of novel agents. Costs also vary by prognostic factors and treatment-related resource use. Future studies assessing the costs of combination therapy consisting of two or more novel agents are encouraged.