Costs of abduction treatment in developmental dysplasia of the hip. Analysis of 900 patients.

BACKGROUND: Developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH) is a disorder of hip development that leads to dysplasia, subluxation, or total hip dislocation. Early detection of DDH is important, and early initiation of abduction treatment is key to successful correction of the hip joint. However, mild forms of DDH, including hip instability without complete dislocation, have good spontaneous healing potential, and a watchful waiting strategy in mild DDH has been found to be safe. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the cost differences between different treatment strategies for DDH. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Data were collected retrospectively from the medical records of all children diagnosed with diagnosis and treatment of DDH in Tampere University hospital between 1998 and 2018. In total, 948 patients were included in the study. Patients who underwent casting or operative treatment (n = 48) were excluded from the analysis. All Ortolani positive children were subjected to early abduction treatment. Children with Ortolani negative DDH were subjected to either watchful waiting or early abduction treatment, based on the clinicians' decision. The regression model estimates for the number of clinical visits with and without ultrasound examination were assessed together with cost reports from Tampere University Hospital for the calculation of savings per patient in spontaneous recovery. RESULTS: Alpha angles at one month of age (p < 0.001) and treatment method (p < 0.001) affected the number of clinical visits and ultrasound examinations during the treatment follow-up. A low alpha angle predicted closer follow-up, and children with spontaneous recovery had lower numbers of clinical visits and ultrasound examinations than children in abduction treatment. Spontaneous recovery was found to result in approximately 375€/patient savings compared to successful abduction treatment. CONCLUSION: With correct patient selection, a watchful waiting strategy is cost-effective in treating mild developmental dysplasia of the hip, considering the high percentage of spontaneous recovery.

Watchful waiting strategy should be implemented to clinical practice when treating mild DDH as it seems safe and cost effective.

Emergency medical dispatchers' ability to identify large vessel occlusion stroke during emergency calls.

BACKGROUND: In acute ischemic stroke, conjugated eye deviation (CED) is an evident sign of cortical ischemia and large vessel occlusion (LVO). We aimed to determine if an emergency dispatcher can recognise LVO stroke during an emergency call by asking the caller a binary question regarding whether the patient's head or gaze is away from the side of the hemiparesis or not. Further, we investigated if the paramedics can confirm this sign at the scene. In the group of positive CED answers to the emergency dispatcher, we investigated what diagnoses these patients received at the emergency department (ED). Among all patients brought to ED and subsequently treated with mechanical thrombectomy (MT) we tracked the proportion of patients with a positive CED answer during the emergency call. METHODS: We collected data on all stroke dispatches in the city of Tampere, Finland, from 13 February 2019 to 31 October 2020. We then reviewed all patient records from cases where the dispatcher had marked 'yes' to the question regarding patient CED in the computer-aided emergency response system. We also viewed all emergency department admissions to see how many patients in total were treated with MT during the period studied. RESULTS: Out of 1913 dispatches, we found 81 cases (4%) in which the caller had verified CED during the emergency call. Twenty-four of these patients were diagnosed with acute ischemic stroke. Paramedics confirmed CED in only 9 (11%) of these 81 patients. Two patients with positive CED answers during the emergency call and 19 other patients brought to the emergency department were treated with MT. CONCLUSION: A small minority of stroke dispatches include a positive answer to the CED question but paramedics rarely confirm the emergency medical dispatcher's suspicion of CED as a sign of LVO. Few patients in need of MT can be found this way. Stroke dispatch protocol with a CED question needs intensive implementation.

Sunitinib First-line Treatment in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: Costs and Effects.

BACKGROUND/AIM: Tyrosine kinase inhibitors are important in the treatment of metastatic renal cell cancer (mRCC). The aim of the study was to evaluate the costs and effects of sunitinib in mRCC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 81 mRCC patients who received first-line sunitinib therapy between 2010 and 2014 were recruited. Drug doses, laboratory and imaging studies, outpatient visits and inpatient stays were recorded. Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) was measured (15D- and EQ-5D - 3L questionnaires). RESULTS: The cost of sunitinib (mean 22,268 €/patient range 274 € to 105,121 €) covered 73% of the total costs during the treatment period. The total treatment cost was 30,530 €/patient (range=1,661-111,516 €). The median overall survival was 17.9 months. HRQoL decreased during treatment. CONCLUSION: The main cost during sunitinib treatment of mRCC was the drug itself (73% of the total costs). Drug costs and HRQoL should be considered when choosing treatment for mRCC.

Costs of Robotic-Assisted Versus Traditional Laparoscopy in Endometrial Cancer.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to compare the costs of traditional laparoscopy and robotic-assisted laparoscopy in the treatment of endometrial cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A total of 101 patients with endometrial cancer were randomized to the study and operated on starting from 2010 until 2013, at the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology of Tampere University Hospital, Tampere, Finland. Costs were calculated based on internal accounting, hospital database, and purchase prices and were compared using intention-to-treat analysis. Main outcome measures were item costs and total costs related to the operation, including a 6-month postoperative follow-up. RESULTS: The total costs including late complications were 2160 &OV0556; higher in the robotic group (median for traditional 5823 &OV0556;, vs robot median 7983 &OV0556;, P < 0.001). The difference was due to higher costs for instruments and equipment as well as to more expensive operating room and postanesthesia care unit time. Traditional laparoscopy involved higher costs for operation personnel, general costs, medication used in the operation, and surgeon, although these costs were not substantial. There was no significant difference in in-patient stay, laboratory, radiology, blood products, or costs related to complications. CONCLUSIONS: According to this study, robotic-assisted laparoscopy is 37% more expensive than traditional laparoscopy in the treatment of endometrial cancer. The cost difference is mainly explained by amortization of the robot and its instrumentation.

Economic evaluation of sunitinib malate in second-line treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma in Finland.

BACKGROUND: Cytokine therapy is currently used as first-line treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Until recently, treatments with proven efficacy after the failure of first-line cytokine therapy were not available. In recent clinical trials, sunitinib has been associated with good response rates in patients with mRCC. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to analyze the cost-effectiveness of sunitinib as second-line therapy for cytokine-refractory mRCC compared with current routine clinical practice in Finland (ie, best supportive care [BSC], including palliative biochemotherapy). METHODS: A probabilistic decision-analytic model was developed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of sunitinib. Data were gathered from clinical trials, literature sources, and expert opinions, as well as from a local sample (n = 39) from 2 university hospitals in Finland. Clinical experts treating patients with mRCC in Finland provided the information on care practices of prescribing sunitinib. The analysis was conducted from the perspective of the health care payer in Finland. RESULTS: According to estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), 1 progression-free month gained cost euro4802 (2005 Euros); 1 life-year gained cost euro30,831; and 1 quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained cost euro43,698, compared with BSC, in the treatment of mRCC. The expected mean cost in BSC was euro5543. When parameter uncertainty was considered, the probability of sunitinib being the more cost-effective choice of treatment was ~70% at the willingness-to-pay level of euro45,000/QALY gained. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the results of this cost-effectiveness analysis, sunitinib is potentially cost-effective as a second-line treatment of mRCC compared with the treatment currently practiced in Finnish hospitals. The ICER (euro/QALY gained) obtained in the present study was less than the value considered suitable for novel oncology treatments.