Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 5 de 5
Filtrar
Mais filtros










Base de dados
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
Int J Dermatol ; 51(12): 1432-40, 2012 Dec.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-23171010

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Psoriasis is a chronic debilitating disease affecting approximately one million Canadians. The objective of this study is to estimate the economic burden in $CDN (2008) of moderate to severe plaque psoriasis among Canadian adults. METHODS: Using a cross-sectional design, direct resource use, costs, lost productivity, and quality of life were obtained for 90 subjects diagnosed with psoriasis in three dermatology clinics in British Columbia, Ontario, and Québec. An Excel-based economic model was developed to project the annual cost of psoriasis, from the societal perspective. RESULTS: The estimated mean annual cost of psoriasis was $7999/subject (95% CI: $3563-$12,434) with direct costs accounting for 57%. Mean lost productivity costs, which accounted for 43% of the mean annual costs of psoriasis, were $3442/subject (95% CI: $1293-$5590). CONCLUSION: Projecting the mean costs per patient to the afflicted population yields an estimated total annual cost of $1.7 billion (95% CI: $0.8-$2.6 billion) attributable to moderate to severe psoriasis in Canada. Understanding the interplay between direct costs, lost productivity, and quality of life is critical for accurately identifying and evaluating effective treatments for this disease.


Assuntos
Gastos em Saúde/estatística & dados numéricos , Recursos em Saúde/estatística & dados numéricos , Psoríase/economia , Psoríase/epidemiologia , Licença Médica/estatística & dados numéricos , Absenteísmo , Adulto , Instituições de Assistência Ambulatorial/economia , Instituições de Assistência Ambulatorial/estatística & dados numéricos , Canadá/epidemiologia , Efeitos Psicossociais da Doença , Estudos Transversais , Feminino , Recursos em Saúde/economia , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Modelos Econométricos , Qualidade de Vida , Estudos Retrospectivos , Índice de Gravidade de Doença , Licença Médica/economia
2.
Curr Med Res Opin ; 21(6): 817-26, 2005 Jun.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-15969881

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the cost effectiveness of cilostazol (Pletal) compared to naftidrofuryl and pentoxifylline (Trental) in the treatment of intermittent claudication in the UK. DESIGN AND SETTING: This was a modelling study on the management of patients with intermittent claudication who are 40 years of age or above and have at least six months history of symptomatic intermittent claudication, secondary to lower extremity arterial occlusive disease. The study was performed from the perspective of the UK's National Health Service (NHS). METHODS: Clinical outcomes attributable to managing intermittent claudication were obtained from the published literature and resource utilisation estimates were derived from a panel of vascular surgeons. Using decision analytical techniques, a decision model was constructed depicting the management of intermittent claudication with cilostazol, naftidrofuryl and pentoxifylline over 24 weeks in the UK. The model was used to estimate the cost effectiveness (at 2002/2003 prices) of cilostazol relative to the other treatments. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES AND RESULTS: Starting treatment with cilostazol instead of naftidrofuryl is expected to increase the percentage improvement in maximal walking distance by 32% (from 57% to 75%) for a 12% increase in NHS costs (from 801 pounds sterling to 895 pounds sterling). Treatment with cilostazol instead of pentoxifylline is expected to increase the percentage improvement in maximal walking distance by 67% (from 45% to 75%) and reduce NHS costs by 2% (from 917 pounds sterling to 895 pounds sterling). Treatment with naftidrofuryl instead of pentoxifylline is expected to increase the percentage improvement in maximal walking distance by 27% (from 45% to 57%) and decrease NHS costs by 14% (from 917 pounds sterling to 801 pounds sterling). CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of our model, starting treatment with cilostazol is expected to be a clinically more effective strategy for improving maximal walking distance at 24 weeks than starting treatment with naftidrofuryl or pentoxifylline and potentially the most cost effective strategy. Moreover, the acquisition cost of a drug should not be used as an indication of the cost effectiveness of a given method of care.


Assuntos
Análise Custo-Benefício , Claudicação Intermitente/tratamento farmacológico , Nafronil/uso terapêutico , Pentoxifilina/uso terapêutico , Tetrazóis/uso terapêutico , Vasodilatadores/uso terapêutico , Adulto , Cilostazol , Humanos , Claudicação Intermitente/fisiopatologia , Nafronil/economia , Pentoxifilina/economia , Medicina Estatal , Tetrazóis/economia , Reino Unido , Vasodilatadores/economia , Caminhada
3.
Curr Med Res Opin ; 21(5): 805-15, 2005 May.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-15969880

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the costs and consequences of using pamidronate compared to zoledronic acid in the prophylactic management of skeletal morbidity among breast cancer patients in the UK. DESIGN AND SETTING: This was a modelling study performed from the perspective of the UK's National Health Service (NHS). METHODS: Published clinical outcomes from a comparative study were combined with resource utilisation estimates derived from a panel of clinicians. This enabled the construction of a decision model depicting the management of patients with breast cancer receiving antineoplastic therapy who are 18 years of age or above and who have at least one bone metastasis (lytic or mixed). There are no significant differences in outcome between using pamidronate and zoledronic acid in breast cancer patients. Therefore, a cost minimisation analysis was performed to identify the treatment strategy that achieves the same outcome for least cost. The expected time attributable to a pamidronate and zoledronic acid infusion was also estimated. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES AND RESULTS: Starting treatment with pamidronate among patients receiving chemotherapy is expected to lead to a healthcare cost of 6046 pounds over 12 months compared to 6981 pounds with zoledronic acid. In comparison, for patients receiving hormonal therapy, starting treatment with pamidronate is expected to lead to a healthcare cost of 5401 pounds over 12 months compared to 6043 pounds with zoledronic acid. This cost difference is primarily due to the lower acquisition cost of pamidronate and fewer tests among pamidronate-treated patients. Accordingly, pamidronate affords a less expensive management modality. Multivariate analysis showed the expected time attributable to a pamidronate infusion to be 110 to 277 minutes compared with 136 to 296 minutes for a zoledronic acid infusion. CONCLUSION: Use of pamidronate instead of zoledronic acid affords an economic benefit to the NHS. Moreover, published clinical trials show no statistical difference between pamidronate and zoledronic acid at 1 year. Hence, within the limitations of our model and the published evidence, pamidronate is the preferred first-line intravenous bisphosphonate for use in breast cancer patients receiving antineoplastic therapy who are 18 years of age or above and who have at least one bone metastasis (lytic or mixed).


Assuntos
Antineoplásicos/economia , Antineoplásicos/uso terapêutico , Neoplasias da Mama/tratamento farmacológico , Técnicas de Apoio para a Decisão , Difosfonatos/economia , Difosfonatos/uso terapêutico , Custos de Cuidados de Saúde , Imidazóis/economia , Imidazóis/uso terapêutico , Medicina Estatal/economia , Adolescente , Adulto , Idoso , Neoplasias da Mama/fisiopatologia , Distúrbios do Metabolismo do Cálcio/economia , Distúrbios do Metabolismo do Cálcio/prevenção & controle , Quimioprevenção , Análise Custo-Benefício , Feminino , Humanos , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Pamidronato , Reino Unido , Ácido Zoledrônico
4.
Prim Care Respir J ; 14(2): 88-98, 2005 Apr.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-16701704

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: To determine the costs and consequences of switching asthma patients, managed in primary care, from a twice-daily inhaled corticosteroid (ICS), to either a once-daily or another twice-daily ICS. DESIGN: This was a case-control study based on an interrogation of the General Practice Research Database in the UK, for patients with a Read code of asthma who were managed between 1990 and 2001, and who had received at least two prescriptions for a twice-daily ICS within 12 months, before switching to a once-daily ICS (cases) or another twice-daily ICS (controls). Data on resource use was collected for one year before and after the switch. Patients were stratified according to whether their treatment step had been stepped up, stepped down or remained unchanged. SETTING: A modelling study performed from the perspective of the UK's National Health Service (NHS). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Compliance with ICS, and the cost of drug and non-drug resource use, for the year before and after the switch. RESULTS: Switching patients managed in primary care to a once-daily ICS increased compliance and reduced NHS costs, irrespective of whether patients' treatment had been stepped up or down. Switching patients to another twice-daily ICS increased compliance to a lesser extent, and increased NHS costs. We believe that this paper offers the first documented association between compliance in asthma and NHS management costs. CONCLUSIONS: Compliance and management costs among patients with asthma managed in primary care appear to be related to both changing treatment and dosing regimen. Within the limitations of our study, the results suggest that patients who are switched to a once-daily ICS rather than another twice-daily preparation are better compliers with their ICS medication. Additionally, patients who become high-compliers after being switched to a once-daily ICS incur lower management costs than patients who become high-compliers after being switched to another twice-daily ICS. These findings should now be investigated further under more controlled conditions.

5.
Eur J Health Econ ; 5(3): 227-35, 2004 Oct.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-15714343

RESUMO

This study was a retrospective survey of the management of a cohort of children with cerebral palsy at Seepark Hospital, Germany, who did (cases; n=107) and did not (controls; n=107) receive botulinum toxin injections. Data on healthcare resource use and clinical outcomes over 12 months were collected from the date cases received their first injection and from the date controls were first admitted into hospital. Botulinum toxin use led to an 85% reduction in the number of children requiring surgery. Additionally, controls used significantly more healthcare resources than cases, particularly hospital bed days (69.2+/-34.1 vs. 27.5+/-27.9 days; p <0.0001). The total cost of managing cases and controls was 16,700 and 33,800, respectively. In conclusion, use of botulinum toxin released resources for alternative use during the first year following treatment, without any loss of clinical improvement. However, it is unknown how botulinum toxin affected the need for surgery and associated outcomes in subsequent years.


Assuntos
Toxinas Botulínicas Tipo A/economia , Toxinas Botulínicas Tipo A/uso terapêutico , Paralisia Cerebral/tratamento farmacológico , Paralisia Cerebral/economia , Fármacos Neuromusculares/economia , Fármacos Neuromusculares/uso terapêutico , Adolescente , Toxinas Botulínicas Tipo A/administração & dosagem , Paralisia Cerebral/cirurgia , Criança , Pré-Escolar , Estudos de Coortes , Custos e Análise de Custo , Feminino , Alemanha , Recursos em Saúde/estatística & dados numéricos , Humanos , Tempo de Internação , Masculino , Análise Multivariada , Fármacos Neuromusculares/administração & dosagem , Seleção de Pacientes , Estudos Retrospectivos , Fatores de Tempo , Resultado do Tratamento
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA
...