Aims To consider the cost implication of adopting epimacular brachytherapy (EMB) for the treatment of neovascular (wet) age-related macular degeneration (wAMD), compared with ranibizumab or bevacizumab monotherapy. Methods This analysis compared the cumulative 3-year costs of anti-VEGF (vascular endothelial growth factor) monotherapy to EMB combined with anti-VEGF therapy. Two patient groups were considered: newly diagnosed (treatment-naïve) patients; and patients already receiving chronic anti-VEGF therapy. Results In the treatment-naïve patients, the highest cumulative treatment costs were associated with ranibizumab monotherapy (d25 658), followed by bevacizumab monotherapy (d16 177), EMB with ranibizumab (d14 002), then EMB with bevacizumab (d10 289). In previously treated patients, the highest treatment costs were ranibizumab monotherapy (d18 355), followed by EMB with ranibizumab (d17 428), bevacizumab monotherapy (d16 177), then EMB with bevacizumab (d12 129). Conclusion EMB combined with anti-VEGF treatment has the potential to yield considerable cost savings, compared with anti-VEGF monotherapy. If the ongoing large studies of EMB confirm the published feasibility data, then adjuvant EMB may represent a cost-effective alternative to anti-VEGF monotherapy.

Background Hospital-acquired thrombosis (HAT) is a leading cause of preventable death and disability worldwide. HAT includes any venous thromboembolic (VTE) event occurring in-hospital or within 90-days of hospitalisation. Despite availability of evidence-based guidelines for HAT risk assessment and prophylaxis, guidelines are still underutilised. Aim To determine the proportion of patients who developed HAT that could have been potentially prevented with appropriate VTE risk assessment and prophylaxis at a large public hospital in New Zealand. Additionally, the predictors of VTE risk assessment and thromboprophylaxis were examined. Method VTE patients admitted under general medicine, reablement, general surgery, or orthopaedic surgery service were identified using ICD-10-AM codes. Data were collected on patient characteristics, VTE risk factors, and the thromboprophylaxis regimen prescribed. The hospital VTE guidelines were used to determine rates of VTE risk assessment and the appropriateness of thromboprophylaxis. Results Of 1302 VTE patients, 213 HATs were identified. Of these, 116 (54%) received VTE risk assessment, and 98 (46%) received thromboprophylaxis. Patients who received VTE risk assessment were 15 times more likely to receive thromboprophylaxis (odds ratio [OR] = 15.4; 95% CI 7.65–30.98) and 2.8 times more likely to receive appropriate thromboprophylaxis (OR = 2.79; 95% CI 1.59–4.89). Conclusion A large proportion of high-risk patients who were admitted to medical, general surgery and reablement services and who developed HAT did not receive VTE risk assessment and thromboprophylaxis during their index admission, demonstrating a significant gap between guideline recommendations and clinical practice. Implementing mandatory VTE risk assessment and adherence to guidelines to improve thromboprophylaxis prescription in hospitalised patients may help reduce the burden of HAT.

No abstract