Clinical outcomes, quality of life, and costs evaluation of peritoneal dialysis management models in Shanghai Songjiang District: a multi-center and prospective cohort study.

Background: The new Family-Community-Hospital (FCH) three-level comprehensive management aimed to improve the efficiency and scale of peritoneal dialysis (PD) to meet the increased population of end-stage renal disease (ESRD). Our study focused on the clinical outcomes, quality of life, and costs evaluation of this model in a multi-center and prospective cohort study.Methods: A total of 190 ESRD patients who commenced PD at Shanghai Songjiang District were enrolled. According to different PD management models, patients were divided into the Family-Community-Hospital three-level management model (n = 90) and the conventional all-course central hospital management model (n = 100). The primary outcome was clinical outcomes of PD. The secondary outcomes were health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and medical costs evaluation.Results: Compared to conventional management, community-based FCH management achieved a similar dialysis therapeutic effect, including dropout rate (p = 0.366), peritonitis rate (p = 0.965), patient survival (p = 0.441), and technique survival (p = 0.589). Follow-up data showed that similar levels of the renal and peritoneal functions, serum albumin, cholesterol and triglyceride, PTH, serum calcium, and phosphorus between the two groups (all p > 0.05). HRQOL survey showed that the FCH management model helped to improve the psychological status of PD patients, including social functioning (p = 0.006), role-emotional (p = 0.032), and mental health (p = 0.036). FCH management also reduced the hospitalization (p = 0.009) and outpatient visits (p = 0.001) and saved annual hospitalization costs (p = 0.005), outpatient costs (p = 0.026), and transport costs (p = 0.006).Conclusions: Compared with conventional management, community-based FCH management achieved similar outcomes, improved psychological health, reduced medical budgets, and thus had a good social prospect.

Epidemiology and cost of cervical cancer care and prevention in Apulia (Italy), 2007/2016.

BACKGROUND: According to recent estimates, cervical cancer is worldwide the second most common cancer in females and the fourth overall. The number of deaths for cervical cancer is around 7.5% of all female cancer deaths. Cervical cancer is the only tumour with a known necessary cause, the HPV infection and, globally, HPV is the most common sexually transmitted infection. Two major approaches for cervical cancer prevention have been designed: primary prevention by HPV vaccination and secondary prevention by screening. The aim of our study is to design an overview of epidemiology, cost of the therapies and cost of prevention measures (screening and vaccines) 9 years after the introduction of anti-HPV vaccination in the Apulia Regional Immunization Program. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective observational study. METHODS: To describe the epidemiology of cervical cancer, we analysed data from the Apulia regional archive of hospital discharge forms (SDO). We considered all records referred to cervical cancer using the ICD 9 code 180.xxx both in primary and secondary diagnosis, for the years 2007-2016. Subjects living in Apulia have been considered. Costs of hospitalization were computed considering generated Diagnosis Related Groups (DRG). To describe the Apulian screening program, we analysed data from Regional Screening Data warehouse; the cost of the single test was established according to the Tariff List from the Ministry of Health. Finally, vaccination data were extracted by Regional Immunization Database and official ex-factory price has been used to calculate the costs of immunization program. RESULTS: From 2007 to 2016, an important decrease in the incidence rate of cervical cancer in Apulia has been noted, ranging from 43.7 per 100,000 residents in 2007 to 21.0 per 100,000 residents in 2016. From an economic point of view, a clear reduction (39%) is observed in hospitalization costs over time. Total costs of prevention programs increased over time and globally exceed € 54,000,000, with a decreasing trend for vaccine prophylaxis and an increasing trend for screening. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence and costs of cervical cancer in Apulia, although already significantly decreasing, likely will be further reduced since 2027-2032, when we can observe the effects of vaccine prophylaxis on the burden of disease; on this occasion it will be also possible to quantify the actual cost-effectiveness of the vaccine. In our opinion, in the future the Apulia healthcare executives should enhance and improve the active screening test offer, without underestimating the importance of sexual education in young people, especially in those who have not had sexual debut yet.

Tratamento do sangramento uterino anormal: uma análise sob a perspectiva dos custos no Sistema Único de Saúde e da medicina suplementar / Treatment of abnormal uterine bleeding: an analysis from the perspective of costs in the public health system and supplementary medicine

Objetivos: Comparar os custos diretos e indiretos do sistema intra‐uterino de liberação de levonorgestrel (SIU‐LNG), ablação endometrial com balão térmico (AEBT) e histerectomia no tratamento de mulheres com sangramento uterino anormal (SUA). Métodos: Foram avaliadas retrospectivamente 88 pacientes tratadas para SUA pelo SIU‐LNG (n = 30), AEBT (n = 28) e histerectomia (n = 30). Foram considerados todos os procedimentos, consultas e exames envolvidos no tratamento das pacientes por um período de 5 anos, assim como os custos resultantes das falhas dos tratamentos utilizados. Foram estimados os custos pelo Sistema Único de Saúde (SUS) e sistema de saúde suplementar. As diferenças entre os grupos foram avaliadas pelo teste do t de Student ou ANOVA. Resultados:O custo do tratamento do SUA com AEBT foi significante mais elevado em comparação ao SIU‐LNG e histerectomia após um e cinco anos de seguimento, tanto no SUS quanto na medicina suplementar (p < 0,001). No SUS, o tratamento com o SIU‐LNG foi de 38,2% dos custos da histerectomia no primeiro ano (R$ 769,61 vs. R$ 2.012,21, p < 0,001) e de 45,2% após cinco anos (R$ 927,83 vs. R$ 2.052,21, p < 0,001). Na saúde suplementar essa diferença foi ainda mais expressiva. Nesse contexto, o custo do SIU‐LNG foi de 29,1% dos custos da histerectomia no primeiro ano (R$ 1.551,92 vs. R$5.324,74, p < 0,001) e de 37,4% após cinco anos (R$ 2.069,35 vs. R$ 5.538,74, p < 0,001). Conclusões: O uso do SIU‐LNG resulta em custos diretos e indiretos menores do que a AEBT e histerectomia no tratamento do SUA. A custo‐efetividade do SIU‐LNG aliado à reversibilidade e por ser um procedimento ambulatorial reforçam o seu papel no tratamento de mulheres com SUA tanto na perspectiva do SUS quanto na saúde suplementar.

Objectives: To compare direct and indirect costs of the levonorgestrel‐releasing intrauterine system (LNG‐IUS), thermal balloon endometrial ablation (TBEA) and hysterectomy in the treatment of women with abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB). Methods: 88 patients treated for AUB by LNG‐IUS (n = 30), TBEA (n = 28) and hysterectomy (n = 30) were retrospectively evaluated. All procedures, medical appointments and tests involved in the treatment of patients were considered for a period of five years, as well as all costs arising from failures of the treatments used. The costs for the Unified Health System (SUS) and the private health care system were estimated. Differences between groups were evaluated by the test t of Student or ANOVA. Results: The cost of the treatment of AUB with TBEA was significantly higher versus LNG‐IUS and hysterectomy after a five‐year follow‐up in both SUS and private health care system (p <0.001). In SUS, the treatment with the LNG‐IUS represented 38.2% of the hysterectomy cost in the first year (R$ 769.61 vs. R$ 2,012.21, p <0.001) and 45.2% after five years (R$ 927.83 vs. R$ 2,052.21, p <0.001). As for the private health care system, this difference was even more significant. In this context, the cost of LNG‐IUS represented 29.1% of the hysterectomy cost in the first year (R$ 1,551.92 vs. R$ 5,324.74, p <0.001) and 37.4% after five years (R$ 2,069.35 vs. R$ 5,538.74, p <0.001). Conclusions: The use of LNG‐IUS results in lower direct and indirect costs versus TBEA and hysterectomy in the treatment of women with AUB. The cost‐effectiveness of LNG‐IUS, together with the reversibility and also by this being an outpatient procedure, highlights its role in the treatment of women with AUB, both in SUS perspective as in private health care system's.