using the survey results and findings from the literature: cost of travel to receive healthcare (£780), household expenses (£136), cost of moving home (£65) and lost accommodation costs (£214). ConClusions: Patient survey results showed that aHUS has a substantial economic burden to patients, their carers and society. The total economic burden from lost productivity of patients, carers and out-of-pocket expenses was estimated to be £9,243 per aHUS patient per year.

The cost of Teriflunomide treatment for RRMS patients is higher and costing the health plan around $3552 per month. The cost of the drug treatment was higher in southern of the USA and males were paying more in general. PND6Cost-Utility ANAlysis of NAtAlizUmAb As first-liNe treAtmeNt of HigHly-ACtive relAPsiNg-remittiNg mUltiPle sClerosis iN tHe brAziliAN PUbliC HeAltHCAre system

Objectives: The Brazilian Clinical Protocol and Therapeutic Guideline (PCDT) for epilepsy treatment includes twelve different anti-epileptic drugs (AEDs). Currently, levetiracetam (LEV) is not an option on the PCDT. Our objective was to evaluate the potential budgetary impact of LEV use as monotherapy treatment of focal seizures (partial-onset) with or without second generalization in patients over 16 years old in case of adoption by the National Public Health System. MethOds: A budget impact model was developed covering a 5-year period. Patient population and yearly incidence rates applied in the model were extracted from the Brazilian Unified Health System (SUS) database, the DATASUS. Two hypothetical scenarios were compared based on expert opinion and the current clinical guidelines: levetiracetam monotherapy versus valproic acid monotherapy, both as first line treatments. Subsequent treatment lines were the same in both scenarios: 2nd line-carbamazepine monotherapy; 3rd line-topiramate monotherapy; 4th line-lamotrigine adjuvant; 5th linegabapentin adjuvant; 6th line-surgery. It was assumed that levetiracetam would fully replace valproic acid monotherapy. Yearly drug acquisition of all AEDs and surgery costs were considered in local currency; Reais. Results: 54,532 patients were predicted to receive their first AED (valproic acid or LEV monotherapy) in year 1. Total costs without LEV was R$57,212,820 in the first year increasing to R$87,445,861 in year 5. In contrast, switching first-line treatment to LEV was predicted to cost R$49,479,363 (year 1) and R$81,477,840 (year 5), respectively, attributable to the lower acquisition cost. cOnclusiOns: The introduction of LEV as a new therapeutic option for epilepsy patients with focal seizures with or without second generalization is anticipated to be associated with cost savings of R$5,968,021 in year 5 and cumulative cost savings of R$24.348.756 over 5 years for the Brazilian public health system. UCB-Pharma sponsored.Objectives: To perform a cost-utility (CUA) and budget impact analysis (BIA) of oral dimethyl fumarate (DMF) in the Brazil's Unified Health System (SUS). MethOds: A Markov model was developed to simulate costs and outcomes of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) patients. Mutually exclusive health states were based on the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score. Patients were initially distributed through EDSS states from 0-5 and could progress and/or relapse on yearly cycles. Treatment sequences were set in accordance with current local guidelines, starting with first-line interferon-beta 1a 22 mcg, 44 mcg or 30 mcg (IFN22, IFN44, IFN30), interferon-beta 1b 300 mcg (IFN300), glatiramer acetate (GLA) or DMF followed by second-line therapies natalizumab (NTZ) or fingolimod (FIN). Costs were obtained from SUS reimbursement lists and efficacy, safety/discontinuation parameters from a published literature systematic review. Results were expressed as incremental cost-utility ratios (ICUR). BIA was based on drug acquisition costs. Eligible po...

received DMT. Patients with DMT were less likely to have a corticosteroid claim than patients not receiving DMT (39% vs 62%), and less likely to have an ER visit (39% vs 54%) or hospitalization episode (18% vs 29%).

A869 0,9% saline on the costs of IV fluids and costs associated with fluid-related complications. The target population was adult patients (age ≥ 18 years) meeting SIRS criteria and receiving solely crystalloid IV fluids. The interventions compared were: patients mainly receiving BAL fluid mix versus patients receiving IV fluid therapy without BAL fluid mix considering an increasing adoption rate over 5-year period. Results: The base case was defined as a 300-bed hospital with 90% occupancy, a 2.7% SIRS frequency among inpatients, current BAL adoption level of 2%, projected year 5 BAL adoption levels of 20%. The patient number per month requiring fluid resuscitation calculated was 47 (564 per year). The overall savings were calculated by subtracting the costs of complications and treatments associated with BAL adoption level for a given year from costs associated with current BAL adoption level and adding the incremental costs.