Comparison of healthcare costs before and after a STEMI: A French national health data system-based cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Few studies have investigated real-world healthcare costs following a myocardial infarction (MI) and, to our knowledge, none after an ST-elevation MI (STEMI) specifically. Producing such data is important in order to help evaluate the economic burden of STEMI, but also to feed economic evaluation models and eventually show the economic interest of reducing STEMI incidence. The aim of this study was to estimate the healthcare cost in the year preceding and the year following a STEMI in France, in order to estimate the surplus in healthcare resource consumption after a STEMI. METHODS: This study was conducted from the healthcare system perspective. The individual data from the HIBISCUS-STEMI cohort, which included patients with acute STEMI undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention, were matched with the French national health data system (Système National des Données de Santé, SNDS) using a probabilistic method. All expenses (in- and out-hospital) presented for reimbursement were taken into account to estimate a mean annual healthcare cost. RESULTS: A total 258 patients from the HIBISCUS-STEMI cohort were included in this economic study. The total mean healthcare cost was estimated at €3516 before the STEMI, and at €9980 after the STEMI. Hospitalizations constituted the largest cost item, 27 % of the total cost before the STEMI and 41.8 % after the STEMI (Δ + 338.8 %). Follow-up and rehabilitative care represented the second largest cost item (25.9 % before and 18 % after the STEMI, Δ + 96.7 %). Treatments represented 19.4 % of the total cost before the STEMI and 17.2 % after (Δ + 150.8 %). CONCLUSIONS: This study shows a significant surplus (threefold) of healthcare resource consumption in the year following a STEMI compared to the year preceding the STEMI.

Ultra-low tidal volume ventilation for COVID-19-related ARDS in France (VT4COVID): a multicentre, open-label, parallel-group, randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is associated with a high mortality rate and longer mechanical ventilation. We aimed to assess the effectiveness of ventilation with ultra-low tidal volume (ULTV) compared with low tidal volume (LTV) in patients with COVID-19-related ARDS. METHODS: This study was a multicentre, open-label, parallel-group, randomised trial conducted in ten intensive care units in France. Eligible participants were aged 18 years or older, received invasive mechanical ventilation for COVID-19 (confirmed by RT-PCR), had ARDS according to the Berlin definition, a partial pressure of arterial oxygen to inspiratory oxygen fraction (PaO2/FiO2) ratio of 150 mm Hg or less, a tidal volume (VT) of 6·0 mL/kg predicted bodyweight or less, and received continuous intravenous sedation. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) using randomisation blocks to receive ULTV (intervention group) aiming for VT of 4·0 mL/kg predicted bodyweight or LTV (control group) aiming for VT 6·0 mL/kg predicted bodyweight. Participants, investigators, and outcome assessors were not masked to group assignment. The primary outcome was a ranked composite score based on all-cause mortality at day 90 as the first criterion and ventilator-free days among patients alive at day 60 as the second criterion. Effect size was computed with the unmatched win ratio, on the basis of pairwise prioritised comparison of primary outcome components between every patient in the ULTV group and every patient in the LTV group. The unmatched win ratio was calculated as the ratio of the number of pairs with more favourable outcome in the ULTV group over the number of pairs with less favourable outcome in the ULTV group. Primary analysis was done in the modified intention-to-treat population, which included all participants who were randomly assigned and not lost to follow-up. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04349618. FINDINGS: Between April 15, 2020, and April 13, 2021, 220 patients were included and five (2%) were excluded. 215 patients were randomly assigned (106 [49%] to the ULTV group and 109 [51%] to the LTV group). 58 (27%) patients were female and 157 (73%) were male. The median age was 68 years (IQR 60-74). 214 patients completed follow-up (one lost to follow-up in the ULTV group) and were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. The primary outcome was not significantly different between groups (unmatched win ratio in the ULTV group 0·85 [95% CI 0·60 to 1·19]; p=0·38). 46 (44%) of 105 patients in the ULTV group and 43 (39%) of 109 in the LTV group died by day 90 (absolute difference 4% [-9 to 18]; p=0·52). The rate of severe respiratory acidosis in the first 28 days was higher in the ULTV group than in the LTV group (35 [33%] vs 14 [13%]; absolute difference 20% [95% CI 9 to 31]; p=0·0004). INTERPRETATION: In patients with moderate-to-severe COVID-19-related ARDS, there was no significant difference with ULTV compared with LTV in the composite score based on mortality and ventilator-free days among patients alive at day 60. These findings do not support the systematic use of ULTV in patients with COVID-19-related ARDS. FUNDING: French Ministry of Solidarity and Health and Hospices Civils de Lyon.

Cost-effectiveness of a bone substitute delivering gentamicin in the treatment of chronic osteomyelitis of long bones: Protocol for the CONVICTION randomized multicenter study.

Introduction: Chronic osteomyelitis is a serious osteoarticular infection that most often occurs in the long bones, responsible for significant morbidity with the risk of fracture and amputation. Despite advances in both antibiotics and surgical treatment, the probability of recurrence of infection remains at around 20%. Cerament-G (BONESUPPORT AB, Sweden) is a synthetic bone substitute that fills the bone void left by surgery, prevents infection and promotes bone regeneration within this space. Cerament-G also provides the local delivery of high doses of gentamicin over several weeks. Two prospective observational studies described a number of infectious recurrences of 4 and 5% after the use of Cerament-G. Although available in France, Cerament-G is currently not reimbursed and its high cost constitutes a barrier to its use. We hypothesize that the use of Cerament-G will lead to fewer costs to the collectivity while improving patient utility and, as an innovative strategy, will be superior to standard of care on recurrence of infection. Methods and analysis: The Conviction Study is a prospective, multicenter, randomized, single blind study conducted in 14 French Reference Centers for Complex Osteoarticular infections. The main objective is to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of using Cerament-G in the treatment of chronic long bone osteomyelitis by comparing this innovative strategy to standard of care. A cost-utility analysis from the collective perspective will be conducted over a 24-month time horizon after the initial surgery. The outcome for the main medico-economic evaluation will be Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYs). Discussion: The study is being conducted throughout the CRIOAc network in France, in referral centers for the management of complex infections which will facilitate patient recruitment. This study has several limitations: the investigators have to be trained to handle the device, and it was impossible to blind the surgeon. Conclusion: If the use of Cerament-G is demonstrated to be superior to leaving the dead space empty during surgery for patients with stage III chronic long bone osteomyelitis, its use will be recommended to improve the prognosis of such patients, and this device may eventually qualify for reimbursement through the French Health Insurance scheme. Ethics and dissemination: This protocol received authorization from the Ethics Committee CPP Sud Méditerranée V on April 27, 2021 (21.03.10.77652) and the French National Agency for Medicines and Health Products on May 6, 2021 (2020-A02299-30). Results will be disseminated to the scientific community through congresses and publication in peer-reviewed journals.

Open-label randomized controlled trial of ultra-low tidal ventilation without extracorporeal circulation in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia and moderate to severe ARDS: study protocol for the VT4COVID trial.

BACKGROUND: Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a severe complication of COVID-19 pneumonia, with a mortality rate amounting to 34-50% in moderate and severe ARDS, and is associated with prolonged duration of invasive mechanical ventilation. Such as in non-COVID ARDS, harmful mechanical ventilation settings might be associated with worse outcomes. Reducing the tidal volume down to 4 mL kg-1 of predicted body weight (PBW) to provide ultra-low tidal volume ventilation (ULTV) is an appealing technique to minimize ventilator-inducted lung injury. Furthermore, in the context of a worldwide pandemic, it does not require any additional material and consumables and may be applied in low- to middle-income countries. We hypothesized that ULTV without extracorporeal circulation is a credible option to reduce COVID-19-related ARDS mortality and duration of mechanical ventilation. METHODS: The VT4COVID study is a randomized, multi-centric prospective open-labeled, controlled superiority trial. Adult patients admitted in the intensive care unit with COVID-19-related mild to severe ARDS defined by a PaO2/FiO2 ratio ≤ 150 mmHg under invasive mechanical ventilation for less than 48 h, and consent to participate to the study will be eligible. Patients will be randomized into two balanced parallels groups, at a 1:1 ratio. The control group will be ventilated with protective ventilation settings (tidal volume 6 mL kg-1 PBW), and the intervention group will be ventilated with ULTV (tidal volume 4 mL kg-1 PBW). The primary outcome is a composite score based on 90-day all-cause mortality as a prioritized criterion and the number of ventilator-free days at day 60 after inclusion. The randomization list will be stratified by site of recruitment and generated using random blocks of sizes 4 and 6. Data will be analyzed using intention-to-treat principles. DISCUSSION: The purpose of this manuscript is to provide primary publication of study protocol to prevent selective reporting of outcomes, data-driven analysis, and to increase transparency. Enrollment of patients in the study is ongoing. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04349618 . Registered on April 16, 2020.

Cost of off-label antibiotic therapy for bone and joint infections: a 6-year prospective monocentric observational cohort study in a referral centre for management of complex osteo-articular infections.

Introduction: Costs related to bone and joint infection (BJI) management are increasing worldwide, particularly due to the growing use of off-label antibiotics that are expensive treatments (ETs), in conjunction with increasing incidence of multi-drug-resistant pathogens. The aim of this study was to evaluate the whole costs related to these treatments during the patient route, including those attributed to the rehabilitation centre (RC) stay in one regional referral centre in France. The total annual cost of ETs for managing complex BJIs in France was then estimated. Material and methods: A prospective monocentric observational study was conducted from 2014 to 2019 in a referral centre for BJI management (CRIOAc - Centre de Référence des Infections OstéoArticulaires complexes). Costs related to expensive treatments ("old" ETs, i.e. ceftaroline, ertapenem, daptomycin, colistin, tigecycline, and linezolid and "new" ETs, defined as those used since 2017, including ceftobiprole, ceftazidime-avibactam, ceftolozane-tazobactam, tedizolid, and dalbavancin) were prospectively recorded. In all cases, the use of these ETs was validated during multidisciplinary meetings. Results: Of the 3219 patients treated, 1682 (52.3 %) received at least one ET, and 21.5 % of patients who received ET were managed in RCs. The overall cost of ETs remained high but stable (EUR 1 033 610 in 2014; EUR 1 129 862 in 2019), despite the increase of patients treated by ETs (from 182 in 2014 to 512 in 2019) and in the cumulative days of treatment (9739 to 16 191 d). Daptomycin was the most prescribed molecule (46.2 % of patients in 2014 and 56.8 % in 2019, with 53.8 % overall), but its cost has decreased since this molecule was genericized in 2018; the same trend was observed for linezolid. Thus, costs for old ETs decreased overall, from EUR 1 033 610 in 2014 to EUR 604 997 in 2019, but global costs remained stable due to new ET utilization accounting for 46.5 % of overall costs in 2019. Tedizolid, used as suppressive antimicrobial therapy, represented 77.5 % of total new ET costs. In our centre, dalbavancin was never used. The cost paid by RCs for ETs and the duration of ET remained stable overall between 2016 and 2019. Conclusions: A high consumption of off-label ET is required to treat patients with BJIs in a CRIOAc, and the consequence is a high cost of antimicrobial therapy for these patients, estimated to be almost EUR 10 million in France annually. Costs associated with ET utilization remained stable over the years. On the one hand, the introduction of the generic drugs of daptomycin and linezolid has significantly decreased the share of old ETs, but, on the other hand, the need for new ETs to treat infections associated with more resistant pathogens has not led to decrease in the overall costs. A drastic price reduction of generic drugs is essential to limit the costs associated with more complex BJIs.

Economic Study of 2-Stage Exchange in Patients With Knee or Hip Prosthetic Joint Infection Managed in a Referral Center in France: Time to Use Innovative(s) Intervention(s) at the Time of Reimplantation to Reduce the Risk of Superinfection.

Objective: Chronic prosthetic joint infections (PJI) are serious complications in arthroplasty leading to prosthesis exchange and potential significant costs for health systems, especially if a subsequent new infection occurs. This study assessed the cost of chronic PJI managed with 2-stage exchange at the Lyon University Hospital, CRIOAc Lyon reference center, France. A threshold analysis was then undertaken to determine the reimbursement tariff of a hypothetical preventive device usable at the time of reimplantation, which possibly enables health insurance to save money according to the risk reduction of subsequent new infection. This analysis was also performed for a potential innovative device already available on the market, a dual antibiotic loaded bone cement used to fix cemented prosthesis that releases high concentrations of gentamicin and vancomycin locally (G+V cement). Method: Patients >18 years, admitted for a hip or knee chronic PJI managed with 2-stage exchange, between January 1, 2013, and December 31, 2015, were retrospectively identified. Following, resource consumption in relation to inpatient hospital stay, hospitalization at home, rehabilitation care, outpatient antibiotic treatments, imaging, laboratory analysis, and consultations were identified and collected from patient records and taken into account in the evaluation. Costs were assessed from the French health insurance perspective over the 2 years following prosthesis reimplantation. Results: The study included 116 patients (median age 67 y; 47% hip prosthesis). Mean cost of chronic PJI was estimated over the 2 years following prosthesis reimplantation at €21,324 for all patients, and at €51,697 and €15,745 for patients with (n = 18) and without (n = 98) a subsequent new infection after reimplantation, respectively. According to the threshold analysis the reimbursement tariff (i) should not exceed €2,820 for a device which can reduce the risk of a new infection by 50% and (ii) was between €2,988 and €3,984 if the G + V cement can reduce the risk of a new infection by 80% (this reduction risk is speculative and has to be confirmed by clinical trials). Conclusion: This study revealed that chronic PJI requiring a 2-stage revision is costly, with significant costs in relation to the reimplantation procedure (about 15 k€). However, following reimplantation the rate of subsequent new infection remained high, and the cost of reimplantation following a new infection is considerable, reaching 50k€ per patient. These first cost estimates of managing chronic PJI with 2-stage exchange in France underline the economic interest of preventing new infections.

Pharmacogenetic-guided glimepiride therapy in type-2 diabetes mellitus: a cost-effectiveness study.

The demonstration of the link between certain genetic variations and drug response has allowed the emergence of pharmacogenetics, which offers many opportunities to improve patient care. Type-2 diabetes mellitus is a disease for which several gene polymorphisms have been reported to be associated with drug response. Sulfonylureas are commonly used for the management of this disease. Genetic polymorphisms of CYP2C9, the main enzyme involved in the metabolism of sulfonylureas, have been associated with the risk of severe hypoglycaemia, particularly in poor metabolizers carrying CYP2C9 *3/*3 genotype, and especially in the case of patients treated with glimepiride. The objectives of the present study were to evaluate the potential clinical and economic outcomes of using CYP2C9 genotype data to guide the management of SU regimen in patients initiating glimepiride therapy, and to identify factors affecting the cost-effectiveness of this treatment scheme. The analysis was conducted using a decision tree, considering a 1-year time horizon, and taking as perspective that of the French national health insurance system. With pharmacogenetic-guided therapy, the cost to avoid an episode of severe hypoglycaemia event per 100 000 patients treated was €421 834. Genotyping cost was the most influential factor on the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. In conclusion, the potential cost of CYP2C9 genotype-guided dosing for glimepiride therapy is relatively high, and associated with modest improvements with respect to the number of hypoglycaemia avoided, as compared with standard dosing. Additional economic studies are required to better specify the usefulness of CYP2C9 genotyping prior to glimepiride regimen initiation.

Myocardial infarction: Economic, health, and social impacts on informal caregivers.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to measure the economic impact of informal care (IC) on caregivers assisting myocardial infarction (MI) survivors in France. Health and social impacts were also described. METHODS: Data from the prospective 2008 Health and Disabilities Households Survey (Enquête Handicap-Santé), carried out among the French general population, were used to obtain information about patients with MI and their informal caregivers. To estimate the approximate monetary value of IC, three methods were used: the proxy good method, opportunity cost method (OCM), and contingent valuation method (CVM). A multivariate analysis was performed to determine the associations of the IC duration and the existence of professional care with the health indicators stated by caregivers. RESULTS: The analysis included data from 147 caregivers. The mean value of IC ranged from €9,679 per year using the CVM to €11,288 per year using the OCM (p > .05). The mean willingness to pay for an additional hour of IC was €10.9 (SD = 8.3). A total of 46.2 percent of caregivers reported that IC negatively affected theirs physical condition, and 46.3 percent reported that it negatively affected their psychological health. In addition, 40.1 percent declared that caregiving activity made them anxious and 38.8 percent stated they felt alone. Associations were identified between the duration of IC and feeling the need to be replaced, feeling alone and making sacrifices (p < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Informal caregiver burden may be recognized in health technology assessment in order not to underestimate the cost of strategies and to facilitate the comparability of cost-effectiveness outcomes between studies.

Cost-effectiveness analyses of interventions to improve osteoporosis care in France.

Osteoporosis (OP) is responsible for an important economic burden, but OP care is far from meeting therapeutic guidelines. Some interventions were effective to improve OP management. Our objective was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of these interventions. Structural interventions and interventions consisting in sending educational material were dominant strategies. PURPOSE: Osteoporosis (OP) causes many osteoporotic fractures worldwide and an important economic burden as a result. OP care is far from meeting treatment guidelines, but in a recent meta-analysis, we showed that some interventions were effective to improve appropriate bone mineral density (BMD) and treatment prescriptions. In the context of limited resources, it is of major importance to measure these interventions' efficiency. Our objective was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of existing effective intervention types. METHODS: We used a decision tree incorporating Markov models to compare costs and benefits (quality-adjusted life-years or QALYs) between usual care and three intervention types: structural (I), direct educational through conversation (II), and indirect educational by sending material (III). We adopted the collectivity perspective and chose a 30-year time horizon. The model included efficacy of interventions and risk of further fracture or death, depending on BMD T-score results and OP management, obtained from published literature. The model was populated to reflect a French setting. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted. Costs were presented in 2018 euros (€). RESULTS: Interventions type I and III were dominant strategies compared with usual care (cost-saving with a QALY gain). Our results were consistent through sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that structural interventions and indirect interventions to improve OP care (BMD and OP treatment prescription), in women 50 years old with a first fragility fracture, were dominant strategies.

Economic valuation of informal care provided to people after a myocardial infarction in France.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to estimate the mean cost per caregiver of informal care during the first year after myocardial infarction event in France. METHODS: We used the Handicap-Santé French survey carried out in 2008 to obtain data about MI survivors and their caregivers. After obtaining the total number of informal care hours provided by caregiver during the first year after MI event, we estimated the value of informal care using the proxy good method and the contingent valuation method. RESULTS: For MI people receiving informal care, an annual mean cost was estimated at €12,404 (SD = 13,012) with the proxy good method and €12,798 (SD = 13,425) with the contingent valuation method per caregiver during the first year after myocardial infarction event. CONCLUSIONS: The present study suggests that informal care should be included more widely in economic evaluations in order not to underestimate the cost of diseases which induce disability.

Quality Assessment of Reporting of Economic Evaluation in Cardiac Sugery: Has it Improved?

OBJECTIVES: Cardiac surgery has seen substantial scientific progress over recent decades. Health economic evaluations have become important tools for decision makers to prioritize scarce health resources. The present study aimed to identify and critically appraise the reporting quality of health economic evaluations conducted in the field of cardiac surgery. METHODS: A literature search was performed to identify health economic evaluations in cardiac surgery. The consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement was used to assess the quality of reporting of studies. RESULTS: A total 4,705 articles published between 1981 and 2016 were identified; sixty-nine studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. There was a trend toward a greater number of publications and reporting quality over time. Six (8.7 percent) studies were conducted between 1981 and 1990, nine (13 percent) between 1991 and 2000, twenty-four (34.8 percent) between 2001 and 2010, and thirty (43.5 percent) after 2011. The mean CHEERS score of all articles was 16.7/24; for those published between 1980 and 1990 the mean (SD) score was 10.2 (±1.4), for those published between 1991 and 2000 it was 11.2 (±2.4), between 2001 and 2010 it was 15.3 (±4.8), and after 2011 it was 19.9 (±2.9). The quality of reporting was still insufficient for several studies after 2000, especially concerning items "characterizing heterogeneity," "assumptions," and "choice of model." CONCLUSIONS: The present study suggests that, even if the quantity and the quality of health economics evaluation in cardiac surgery has increased, there remains a need for improvement in several reporting criteria to ensure greater transparency.

National cost study versus hospital cost accounting for organ recovery cost assessment in a French hospital group.

BACKGROUND: The choice of cost data sources is crucial, because it influences the results of cost studies, decisions of hospital managers and ultimately national directives of policy makers. The main objective of this study was to compare a hospital cost accounting system in a French hospital group and the national cost study (ENC) considering the cost of organ recovery procedures. The secondary objective was to compare these approaches to the weighting method used in the ENC to assess organ recovery costs. METHODS: The resources consumed during the hospital stay and organ recovery procedure were identified and quantified retrospectively from hospital discharge abstracts and the national discharge abstract database. Identified items were valued using hospital cost accounting, followed by 2010-2011 ENC data, and then weighted using 2010-2011 ENC data. A Kruskal-Wallis test was used to determine whether at least two of the cost databases provided different results. Then, a Mann-Whitney test was used to compare the three cost databases. RESULTS: The costs assessed using hospital cost accounting differed significantly from those obtained using the ENC data (Mann-Whitney; P-value < 0.001). In the ENC, the mean costs for hospital stays and organ recovery procedures were determined to be €4961 (SD €7295) and €862 (SD €887), respectively, versus €12,074 (SD €6956) and €4311 (SD €1738) for the hospital cost accounting assessment. The use of a weighted methodology reduced the differences observed between these two data sources. CONCLUSIONS: Readers, hospital managers and decision makers must know the strengths and weaknesses of each database to interpret the results in an informed context.

Organ recovery cost assessment in the French healthcare system from 2007 to 2014.

Background: Organ recovery costs should be assessed to allow efficient and sustainable integration of these costs into national healthcare budgets and policies. These costs are of considerable interest to health economists, hospitals, financial managers and policy makers in most developed countries. This study assessed organ recovery costs from 2007 to 2014 in the French healthcare system based on the national hospital discharge database and a national cost study. The secondary objective was to describe the variability in the population of deceased organ donors during this period. Methods: All stays for organ recovery in French hospitals between January 2007 and December 2014 were quantified from discharge abstracts and valued using a national cost study. Five cost evaluations were conducted to explore all aspects of organ recovery activities. A sensitivity analysis was conducted to test the methodological choice. Trends regarding organ recovery practices were assessed by monitoring indicators. Results: The analysis included 12 629 brain death donors, with 28 482 organs recovered. The mean cost of a hospital stay was €7469 (SD = €10, 894). The mean costs of separate kidney, liver, pancreas, intestine, heart, lung and heart-lung block recovery regardless of the organs recovered were €1432 (SD = €1342), €502 (SD = €782), €354 (SD = €475), €362 (SD = €1559), €542 (SD = €955), €977 (SD = €1196) and €737 (SD = €637), respectively. Despite a marginal increase in donors, the number of organs recovered increased primarily due to improved practices. Conclusion: Although cost management is the main challenge for successful organ recovery, other aspects such as organization modalities should be considered to improve organ availability.

[Respiratory cancers attributable to occupational exposures: what is the cost to society in France]. / Cancers des voies respiratoires attribuables aux expositions professionnelles : quels coûts pour la société française ?

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the social cost of respiratory cancers attributable to occupational risk factors in France in 2010. METHODS: We estimated the number of cases of respiratory cancers attributable to each identified occupational risk factor according to the attributable fractions method. We also estimated direct (costs of hospital stays, drugs, outpatient care) and indirect costs (production losses) related to morbidity (absenteeism and presenteeism) and mortality (years of lost production). Production losses for paid work and unpaid domestic activities were taken into account. RESULTS: The social cost of respiratory cancers (lung, larynx, sinonasal, pleural mesothelioma) attributable to exposure to asbestos, chromium, diesel engine exhaust, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, painting occupations (unidentified carcinogen), crystalline silica, wood and leather dust in France in 2010 was estimated to be between €960 and 1,866 million. The cost of lung cancer represents between €804 and 1,617 million. The three risk factors with the greatest impact are asbestos (€530 to 890 million), diesel engine exhaust (€227 to 394 million), and crystalline silica (€116 to 268 million). CONCLUSION: These results provide a conservative estimate of the public health and economic burden of respiratory cancers attributable to occupational risk factors from a societal perspective.

Mixed method versus full top-down microcosting for organ recovery cost assessment in a French hospital group.

BACKGROUND: The costing method used can change the results of economic evaluations. Choosing the appropriate method to assess the cost of organ recovery is an issue of considerable interest to health economists, hospitals, financial managers and policy makers in most developed countries. OBJECTIVES: The main objective of this study was to compare a mixed method, combining top-down microcosting and bottom-up microcosting versus full top-down microcosting to assess the cost of organ recovery in a French hospital group. The secondary objective was to describe the cost of kidney, liver and pancreas recovery from French databases using the mixed method. METHODS: The resources consumed for each donor were identified and valued using the proposed mixed method and compared to the full top-down microcosting approach. Data on kidney, liver and pancreas recovery were collected from a medico-administrative French database for the years 2010 and 2011. Related cost data were recovered from the hospital cost accounting system database for 2010 and 2011. Statistical significance was evaluated at P < 0.05. RESULTS: All the median costs for organ recovery differ significantly between the two costing methods (non-parametric test method; P < 0.01). Using the mixed method, the median cost for recovering kidneys was found to be €5155, liver recovery was €2528 and pancreas recovery was €1911. Using the full top-down microcosting method, median costs were found to be 21-36% lower than with the mixed method. CONCLUSION: The mixed method proposed appears to be a trade-off between feasibility and accuracy for the identification and valuation of cost components when calculating the cost of organ recovery in comparison to the full top-down microcosting approach.

Estimating the social cost of respiratory cancer cases attributable to occupational exposures in France.

PURPOSE: The objective of this article was to estimate the social cost of respiratory cancer cases attributable to occupational risk factors in France in 2010. METHODS: According to the attributable fraction method and based on available epidemiological data from the literature, we estimated the number of respiratory cancer cases due to each identified risk factor. We used the cost-of-illness method with a prevalence-based approach. We took into account the direct and indirect costs. We estimated the cost of production losses due to morbidity (absenteeism and presenteeism) and mortality costs (years of production losses) in the market and nonmarket spheres. RESULTS: The social cost of lung, larynx, sinonasal and mesothelioma cancer caused by exposure to asbestos, chromium, diesel engine exhaust, paint, crystalline silica, wood and leather dust in France in 2010 were estimated at between 917 and 2,181 million euros. Between 795 and 2,011 million euros (87-92%) of total costs were due to lung cancer alone. Asbestos was by far the risk factor representing the greatest cost to French society in 2010 at between 531 and 1,538 million euros (58-71%), ahead of diesel engine exhaust, representing an estimated social cost of between 233 and 336 million euros, and crystalline silica (119-229 million euros). Indirect costs represented about 66% of total costs. CONCLUSION: Our assessment shows the magnitude of the economic impact of occupational respiratory cancers. It allows comparisons between countries and provides valuable information for policy-makers responsible for defining public health priorities.