Cost-effectiveness analysis of antimuscarinics in the treatment of patients with overactive bladder in Spain: A decision-tree model

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Fesoterodine, a new once daily antimuscarinic, has proven to be an effective, safe, and well-tolerated treatment in patients with overactive bladder (OAB). To date, no analysis has evaluated the economic costs and benefits associated with fesoterodine, compared to antimuscarinics in Spain. The purpose of this analysis was to assess the economic value of OAB treatment with fesoterodine relative to extended release tolterodine and solifenacin, from the societal perspective.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The economic model was based on data from two 12-week, randomized, double-blind, and multicenter trials comparing fesoterodine and tolterodine extended released (ER). Treatment response rates for solifenacin were extracted from the published literature. Discontinuation and efficacy were based on the results of a 12-week multinational randomized clinical trial extrapolated to 52 weeks. Changes in health related quality of life were assessed with the King's Health Questionnaire, which was transformed into preference-based utility values. Medical costs included (expressed in € 2010) were antimuscarinics, physician visits, laboratory tests, incontinence pads and the costs of OAB-related comorbidities, fractures, skin infections, urinary tract infections, depression, and nursing home admissions associated with incontinence. Time lost from work was also considered. Univariate sensitivity analyses were also performed.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>At week 12, continents accounted for 50.6%, 40.6% and 47.2% of patients in the fesoterodine, tolterodine, and solifenacin groups, respectively. By week 52, the projected proportions of patients remaining on therapy were 33.1%, 26.5% and 30.8%, respectively. The projected quality- adjusted life years (QALY) gain (compared to baseline) over the 52-week simulation period were 0.01014, 0.00846 and 0.00957, respectively. The overall treatment cost was estimated at €1,937, €2,089 and €1,960 for fesoterodine, tolterodine and solifenacin, respectively. Therefore, treatment with fesoterodine resulted in similar overall costs and greater QALY gain than treatment with either tolterodine or solifenacin. Sensitivity analysis showed that these results were robust to all changes performed.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The results of this economic analysis suggest that fesoterodine is a cost-effective alternative to tolterodine and solifenacin for the treatment of patients with OAB in Spain. Fesoterodine provides additional health benefits while maintain a similar level of costs being a cost-effective treatment strategy from a societal perspective.</p

Experiences of patients with chronic gastrointestinal conditions: in their own words

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) are chronic conditions affecting millions of individuals in the United States. The symptoms are well-documented and can be debilitating. How these chronic gastrointestinal (GI) conditions impact the daily lives of those afflicted is not well documented, especially from a patient's perspective.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Here we describe data from a series of 22 focus groups held at three different academic medical centers with individuals suffering from chronic GI conditions. All focus groups were audio recorded and transcribed. Two research team members independently analyzed transcripts from each focus group following an agreed upon coding scheme.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>One-hundred-thirty-six individuals participated in our study, all with a chronic GI related condition. They candidly discussed three broad themes that characterize their daily lives: identification of disease and personal identity, medications and therapeutics, and daily adaptations. These all tie to our participants trying to deal with symptoms on a daily basis. We find that a recurrent topic underlying these themes is the dichotomy of experiencing uncertainty and striving for control.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Study participants' open dialogue and exchange of experiences living with a chronic GI condition provide insight into how these conditions shape day-to-day activities. Our findings provide fertile ground for discussions about how clinicians might best facilitate, acknowledge, and elicit patients' stories in routine care to better address their experience of illness.</p

"Sleep disparity" in the population: poor sleep quality is strongly associated with poverty and ethnicity

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Little is known about the social determinants of sleep attainment. This study examines the relationship of race/ethnicity, socio-economic status (SES) and other factors upon sleep quality.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A cross-sectional survey of 9,714 randomly selected subjects was used to explore sleep quality obtained by self-report, in relation to socioeconomic factors including poverty, employment status, and education level. The primary outcome was poor sleep quality. Data were collected by the Philadelphia Health Management Corporation.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Significant differences were observed in the outcome for race/ethnicity (African-American and Latino versus White: unadjusted OR = 1.59, 95% CI 1.24-2.05 and OR = 1.65, 95% CI 1.37-1.98, respectively) and income (below poverty threshold, unadjusted OR = 2.84, 95%CI 2.41-3.35). In multivariable modeling, health indicators significantly influenced sleep quality most prominently in poor individuals. After adjusting for socioeconomic factors (education, employment) and health indicators, the association of income and poor sleep quality diminished, but still persisted in poor Whites while it was no longer significant in poor African-Americans (adjusted OR = 1.95, 95% CI 1.47-2.58 versus OR = 1.16, 95% CI 0.87-1.54, respectively). Post-college education (adjusted OR = 0.47, 95% CI 0.31-0.71) protected against poor sleep.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>A "sleep disparity" exists in the study population: poor sleep quality is strongly associated with poverty and race. Factors such as employment, education and health status, amongst others, significantly mediated this effect only in poor subjects, suggesting a differential vulnerability to these factors in poor relative to non-poor individuals in the context of sleep quality. Consideration of this could help optimize targeted interventions in certain groups and subsequently reduce the adverse societal effects of poor sleep.</p