Hospital-Associated Cost of Endometriosis in Canada: A Population-Based Study.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To describe the hospital-associated cost of endometriosis in Canada from April 2008 to March 2013. DESIGN: Population-based descriptive study. SETTING: Canada, with the exception of the province of Quebec. PATIENTS: All women aged 15 to 59 years discharged with endometriosis between April 2008 and March 2013. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Over 5 years, 47 021 women were admitted for endometriosis, resulting in a total hospital cost of Canadian dollars (CaD) $152.21 million (US dollars [US $] 147.79 million) and per-case cost of CaD $3237 (US $3143). Uterine endometriosis accounted for 28.29% of cases, ovarian endometriosis 27.44%, and other endometriosis 44.27%. Cost for uterine endometriosis was the highest at CaD $4137 (US $4017) per case, followed by ovarian endometriosis (CaD $3506; US $3404) and other endometriosis (CaD $2495; US $2422). The highest number of cases were in the groups aged 35 to 39 years (20.77%) and 40 to 44 years (20.44%). Hysterectomy accounted for 29.57% of surgical procedures. Encounters with hysterectomy were the costliest at CaD $5062 (US $4915) per case, followed by the ones with other surgical procedures at CaD $2477 (US $2405) per case, and admissions with no surgical procedure at CaD $2164 (US $2101) per case. CONCLUSION: The hospital cost associated with endometriosis was approximately CaD $30 million (US $29.56 million) per year, whereas uterine endometriosis, hysterectomy, and older age were found to have a higher average cost per case. Although this study focuses specifically on hospital admission and does not account for outpatient costs or indirect costs, it nonetheless highlights the economic burden of this debilitating disease on Canadian society during the study period.

Randomized Trial on Fast Track Care in Colorectal Surgery for Deep Infiltrating Endometriosis.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To study the application of a fast-track care protocol in colorectal surgery for deep infiltrating endometriosis. Bowel endometriosis is an infrequent but not rare condition that often needs intestinal surgery and imposes a high economic burden on society. DESIGN: Prospective randomized trial (Canadian Task Force classification I). SETTING: Tertiary referral center. PATIENTS: Two hundred twenty-seven patients with preoperative evidence of bowel endometriosis. INTERVENTIONS: We randomly assigned 227 patients with preoperative evidence of bowel endometriosis to a fast-track protocol (no preoperative bowel preparation, early restoration of diet, no postoperative antibiotics, and early postoperative mobilization) or conventional care for laparoscopic intestinal surgery. Randomization was obtained on a double-blind, date-based schedule, and all procedures were performed by a homogenous group of expert surgeons. Surgical outcomes and a health economic evaluation were assessed. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The primary outcome was hospital stay. Patient's well-being and intraoperative and postoperative complications up to 30 days after surgery were also assessed. Subsequently, direct medical costs were analyzed. Patients assigned to the fast-track protocol were discharged earlier (median 3 vs 7 days, p < .001) with no significant differences in subjective well-being (p = .55). Operative details, postoperative complications, and need of temporary ileostomy were similar (p = .89) between groups as well as readmission rates within 30 days (p = .69). The application of a fast-track protocol resulted in an overall significant reduction of costs (USD 6699 vs 8674, p < .01), and differences were more evident in cases of protective stoma (7652 vs 8793, p < .05) and surgery with postoperative complications (10 835 vs 14 005, p < .01). CONCLUSION: The application of a fast-track care protocol for laparoscopy in cases of pelvic and intestinal endometriosis does not increase the risk of complications and ensures a reduction of medical costs.

Cost-effectiveness study of imipenem/cilastatin versus meropenem in intra-abdominal infections.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of two carbapenems, imipenem/cilastatin (I/C, 1.5 g daily) versus meropenem (3 g daily) in intra-abdominal infections was assessed in a recent multicenter randomized clinical trial. The aim of this article is to perform a cost-effectiveness analysis as in real-world practice according to the findings of this clinical trial. METHODS: A decision tree was used to estimate the clinical outcomes and direct costs of treating intra-abdominal infections using the two carbapenems from the perspective of the Italian National Health Service (INHS) or a private insurance company (PIC). RESULTS: In a population of 30,000 patients with intra-abdominal infections in Italy, it was estimated that 97 potential deaths/year could be avoided if these patients were treated with I/C versus meropenem. In addition, from the perspective of INHS, the total costs of treatment were estimated as ITL 106,874 million and 134,042 million for I/C and meropenem, respectively. In favor of the PIC point of view, the total costs were estimated as ITL 110,500 million and 135,899 million for I/C and meropenem, respectively. CONCLUSION: The treatment of intra-abdominal infections with I/C is shown to be more effective (97 deaths avoided/year) and less costly than with meropenem (with a saving of ITL 27,168 and 25,399 million/year for INHS and PIC, respectively).