Background: Current antiviral therapies for chronic hepatitis B (CHB) rarely achieve functional cure, thus often requiring lifelong therapy. A therapy achieving functional cure in a significant percentage of patients could change the treatment landscape substantially. However, the acceptability of functional cure by patients is unknown, especially if associated with additional treatment burden. Methods: A Discrete Choice Experiment (DCE) including patients with CHB was performed between 2018 and 2019 in Germany. Patient inclusion criteria were confirmed CHB; age of at least 18 years; no history of hepatocellular carcinoma; no HIV or HCV/HDV coinfection. The final DCE included the following attributes: route of administration (oral administration by tablets; subcutaneous injection + tablets; intramuscular electroporation + tablets), side effect frequency (0/1/3 days per month), functional cure (1%/30%/50% of patients), frequency of physician visits (monthly, half-yearly) and travel time to treating physician (15/45 min). Results: The main analysis sample consisted of 108 patients with CHB (mean age: 49.1 years, female: 37.0%, average time since CHB diagnosis: 14.0 years, 52.8% with Hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) chronic HBV infection). High efficacy was found to be the main driver of decisions for/against the presented treatment options (impacted 57% of patients' decisions), followed by therapy regimen (17%), safety profile (12%) and number of physician visits (11%). Latent class analysis revealed first insights into different decision patterns, with age, gender and previous side-effect experience affecting patients' decisions. Conclusion: In comparison to all other treatment-related attributes such as therapy regimen or safety profile, patients with CHB showed a strong preference towards a scenario where a substantial number of patients benefit from sustained disease remission, which mimics functional cure.
Background This study analyzes the impact of skeletal-related events (SRE) on healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and costs incurred by patients with bone metastases (BM) from solid tumors (ST), who are therapy-naïve to bone targeting agents (BTAs). Methods German claims data from 01/01/2010 to 30/06/2018 were used to conduct a retrospective comparative cohort analysis of BTA-naive patients with a BM diagnosis and preceding ST diagnosis. HCRU and treatment-related costs were compared in two matched cohorts of patients with and without a history of SREs, defined as pathological fracture, spinal cord compression, surgery to bone and radiation to bone. The first SRE was defined as the patient-individual index date. Conversely, for the non-SRE patients, index dates were assigned randomly. Results In total, 45.20% of 9,832 patients reported experiencing at least one SRE (n = 4444) while 54.80% experienced none (n = 5388); 2,434 pairs of SRE and non-SRE patients were finally matched (mean age: 70.87/71.07 years; females: 39.07%/38.58%). Between SRE and non-SRE cohorts, significant differences in the average number of hospitalization days per patient-year (35.80/30.80) and associated inpatient-care costs (14,199.27€/10,787.31€) were observed. The total cost ratio was 1.16 (p < 0.001) with an average cost breakdown of 23,689.54€ and 20,403.27€ per patient-year in SRE and non-SRE patients. Conclusion The underutilization of BTAs within a clinical setting poses an ongoing challenge in the real-world treatment of BM patients throughout Germany. Ultimately, the economic burden of treating SREs in patients with BM from ST was found to be considerable, resulting in higher direct healthcare costs and increased utilization of inpatient care facilities.
Objective This study aimed to analyze the healthcare resource use (HCRU) and associated costs of multiple myeloma (MM) using German claims data. Methods Anonymized claims data from one of the largest sickness funds in Germany were analyzed. Costs and HCRU were calculated from the perspective of the statutory health insurance. To analyze MM-associated incremental costs in a most recent calendar period for an overall MM population (31 March 2018-31 March 2019), a prevalent cohort of MM patients (continuously insured during 01 January 2010 until 31 March 2019 or death; two or more outpatient and/or one inpatient MM diagnoses [ICD-10: C90.0-] and alive on 31 March 2018) was compared with a control group (not diagnosed with MM) employing propensity-score matching. Additionally, to describe MM-associated HCRU and costs for treated patients per line of treatment (lot), a cohort of newly treated patients was considered (≥ 12 months' pre-index period without MM treatment). Therapy lines were determined based on observed days of medication supply, treatment switches, and treatment discontinuations. Results Overall, 2523 prevalent MM patients (52.0% female, mean age: 71.3 years) and 1673 newly treated MM patients (50.2% female, mean age: 73.0 years) met the selection criteria and were included in the analyses. After matching, a non-MM counterpart could be identified for 2474 prevalent out of 2523 MM patients. MM-associated incremental HCRU was characterized by an increased number of hospitalizations and a higher number of outpatient specialist visits (per patient-year [ppy] 0.48 additional hospitalizations and 3.80 additional specialist visits; p < 0.001), being also drivers of the associated total incremental add-on costs (15,381.09 € ppy, p < 0.001). Among newly treated patients, total direct costs ppy increased as patients received subsequent treatments (1st lot: 67,681,55 €; 4th lot+: 114,934.01 €), driven by outpatient MM prescriptions (1st lot: 28,692.32 €; 4th lot+: 62,980.72 €). Conclusion The economic burden of MM is driven by outpatient prescriptions, inpatient hospitalizations, and outpatient specialist visits. Treatment and overall costs increase substantially when patients move to later lines of treatment.
Introduction Immunization is the most effective strategy for the prevention of invasive meningococcal disease caused by Neisseria meningitidis serogroup B (MenB); however, parents need to weigh the risk–benefit and financial impact of immunizing their children against MenB in the absence of a national immunization program (NIP). This study aimed to explore societal preferences (of parents and pediatricians) regarding the attributes of a MenB vaccine in Spain. Methods A discrete choice experiment (DCE) based on cross-sectional surveys was carried out to determine preferences. A literature review and scientific committee determined the six attributes related to the MenB vaccine included in the DCE: vaccination age, cost, duration, percentage of protection, adverse events probability, and expert/authority recommendation. Data were analyzed using a mixed logit model. Relative importance (RI) of attributes was calculated and compared between parents and pediatricians. Results A total of 278 parents [55.8% female, mean age 40.4 (standard deviation, SD 7.3) years] and 200 pediatricians [73.0% female, mean age 45.8 (SD 12.9) years] answered the DCE. For parents, the highest RI was attributed to vaccine cost, expert/authority recommendation, and percentage of protection (26.4%, 26.1%, and 22.9%, respectively), while for pediatricians the highest RI was assigned to percentage of protection, expert/authority recommendation, and vaccination age (27.2%, 23.7%, and 22.6%, respectively). Significant differences between parents and pediatricians were found in the RI assigned to all attributes ( p < 0.001), except for vaccine recommendation. Conclusion In the decision regarding MenB vaccination, cost was a driver in parental decision-making but had a low RI for pediatricians and, conversely, vaccination age was highly valued by pediatricians but was the attribute with least importance for parents. Despite these differences, expert/authority recommendation and percentage of protection were essential criteria for both groups. These results provide relevant information about MenB vaccination, highlighting the importance of considering societal preferences for NIP inclusion. Graphical Abstract Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40121-022-00708-7.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.