Hospitalization stay and costs attributable to Clostridium difficile infection: a critical review.

In most healthcare systems, third-party payers fund the costs for patients admitted to hospital for Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) whereas, for CDI cases arising as complications of hospitalization, not all related costs are refundable to the hospital. We therefore aimed to critically review and categorize hospital costs and length of hospital stay (LOS) attributable to Clostridium difficile infection and to investigate the economic burden associated with it. A comprehensive literature review selected papers describing the costs and LOS for hospitalized patients as outcomes of CDI, following the use of statistics to identify costs and LOS solely attributable to CDI. Twenty-four studies were selected. Estimated attributable costs, all ranges expressed in US dollars, were $6,774-$10,212 for CDI requiring admission, $2,992-$29,000 for hospital-acquired CDI, and $2,454-$12,850 where no categorization was made. The ranges for LOS values were 5-13.6, 2.7-21.3, and 2.8-17.9 days, respectively. The categorization of CDI attributable costs allows budget holders to anticipate the cost per CDI case, a perspective that should enrich the design of appropriate incentives for the various budget holders to invest in prevention so that CDI prevention is optimized globally.

Cost-effectiveness of specific immunotherapy with Grazax in allergic rhinitis co-existing with asthma.

BACKGROUND: In the United Kingdom, approximately 10.8 million people suffer from asthma, placing an economic burden on the society of more than 2 billion pounds sterling per year. For allergic asthma, treatment options consist of allergen avoidance, symptomatic treatment and allergen-specific immunotherapy (SIT). Only SIT addresses the underlying cause of the disease, reducing symptoms and offering the potential for long-term improvement. Grazax--the first tablet-based SIT--is indicated for the treatment of patients with grass pollen-induced rhinoconjunctivitis, including those with co-existing asthma. OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness of Grazax in patients with rhinoconjunctivitis and co-existing asthma. METHODS: A prospective pharmacoeconomic analysis was carried out as part of a multinational clinical trial assessing the efficacy of Grazax (n = 79) compared with placebo (n = 72). Both groups had access to symptomatic medication; thus the placebo group represented current standard care. Pooled data on health resource use, productivity loss because of absence from work and quality of life (Quality Adjusted Life Years, QALYs) were collected in the trial. Reduced productivity at work was estimated from the literature. A societal perspective was adopted with a 9-year time horizon. The NHS price of Grazax of 2.25 pounds sterling per tablet was used. RESULTS: The QALY gain was significantly higher for patients treated with Grazax than the placebo group receiving symptomatic medication alone (0.197 discounted QALYs gained 9 years into the future - equal to an extra 72 days of perfect health over 9 years). The levels of resource use and productivity loss were higher for the placebo group. As a result, the cost per QALY gained with Grazax was 4319 pounds sterling , which is highly cost-effective. Price sensitivity analyses demonstrated that Grazax remained cost-effective up to a tablet price of 5.07 pounds sterling . CONCLUSION: SIT with Grazax is a cost-effective strategy compared with standard management of patients with rhinoconjunctivitis and co-existing asthma.