Determinants of healthcare utilization and costs in COPD patients: first longitudinal results from the German COPD cohort COSYCONET

Background: In light of overall increasing healthcare expenditures, it is mandatory to study determinants of future costs in chronic diseases. This study reports the first longitudinal results on healthcare utilization and associated costs from the German chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) cohort COSYCONET. Material and methods: Based on self-reported data of 1904 patients with COPD who attended the baseline and 18-month follow-up visits, direct costs were calculated for the 12 months preceding both examinations. Direct costs at follow-up were regressed on baseline disease severity and other co-variables to identify determinants of future costs. Change score models were developed to identify predictors of cost increases over 18 months. As possible predictors, models included GOLD grade, age, sex, education, smoking status, body mass index, comorbidity, years since COPD diagnosis, presence of symptoms, and exacerbation history. Results: Inflation-adjusted mean annual direct costs increased by 5% (n.s., (sic)6,739 to (sic)7,091) between the two visits. Annual future costs were significantly higher in baseline GOLD grades 2, 3, and 4 (factors 1.24, 95%-confidence interval [1.07-1.43], 1.27 [1.09-1.48], 1.57 [1.27-1.93]). A history of moderate or severe exacerbations within 12 months, a comorbidity count > 3, and the presence of dyspnea and underweight were significant predictors of cost increase (estimates ranging between + (sic)887 and + (sic)3,679, all p<0.05). Conclusions: Higher GOLD grade, comorbidity burden, dyspnea and moderate or severe exacerbations were determinants of elevated future costs and cost increases in COPD. In addition we identified underweight as independent risk factor for an increase in direct healthcare costs over time

Does Pharmaceutical Pricing Transparency Matter? Examining Brazil’s Public Procurement System

Abstract Background We review procurement and pricing transparency practices for pharmaceutical products. We specifically focus on Brazil and examine its approach to increasing pricing transparency, with the aim of determining the level of effectiveness in lower prices using a tool (Banco de Preços em Saúde, BPS) that only reveals purchase prices as compared to other tools (in other countries) that establish a greater degree of price transparency. Methods A general report of Preços em Saúde (BPS) and Sistema Integrado de Administração de Serviços Gerais (SIASG) pricing data was created for 25 drugs that met specific criteria. To explore the linear time trend of each of the drugs, separate regression models were fitted for each drug, resulting in a total of 19 models. Each model controlled for the state variable and the interaction between state and time, in order to accommodate expected heterogeneity in the data. Additionally, the models controlled for procurement quantities and the effect they have on the unit price. Secondary analysis using mixed effects models was also carried out to account for the impact that institutions and suppliers may have upon the unit price. Adjusting for these predictor variables (procurement quantities, supplier, purchasing institution) was important to determine the sole effect that time has had on unit prices. A total of 2 x 19 = 38 models were estimated to explore the overall effect of time on changes in unit price. All statistical analyses were performed using the R statistical software, while the linear mixed effects models were fitted using the lme4 R package. Results The findings from our analysis suggest that there is no pattern of consistent price decreases within the two Brazilian states during the five-year period for which the prices were analyzed. Conclusions While the BPS does allow for an increase in transparency and information on drug purchase prices in Brazil, it has not shown to lead to consistent reductions in drug purchase prices for some of the most widely used medicines. This is indicative of a limited model for addressing the challenges in pharmaceutical procurement and puts into question the value of tools used globally to improve transparency in pharmaceutical pricing

Cost-effectiveness analysis of the 70-gene signature compared with clinical assessment in breast cancer based on a randomised controlled trial

Background: The clinical utility of the 70-gene signature (MammaPrint®) to guide chemotherapy use in T1-3N0-1M0 breast cancer was demonstrated in the Microarray in Node-Negative and 1 to 3 Positive Lymph Node Disease May Avoid Chemotherapy (MINDACT) study. One thousand four ninety seven of 3356 (46.2%) enrolled patients with high clinical risk (in accordance with the modified Adjuvant! Online clinical-pathological assessment) had a low-risk 70-gene signature. Using patient-level data from the MINDACT trial, the cost-effectiveness of using the 70-gene signature to guide adjuvant chemotherapy selection for clinical high risk, estrogen receptor positive (ER+), human epidermal growth factor 2 negative (HER2-) patients was analysed. Patients and methods: A hybrid decision tree-Markov model simulated treatment strategies in accordance with the 70-gene signature with clinical assessment versus clinical assessment alone, over a 10-year time horizon. Primary outcomes were quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), country-specific costs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for six countries: Belgium, France, Germany, Netherlands, UK and the US. Results: Treatment strategies guided by the 70-gene signature result in more QALYs compared with clinical assessment alone. Costs of the 70-gene signature strategy were lower in five of six countries. This led to dominance of the 70-gene signature in Belgium, France, Germany, Netherlands and the US and to a cost-effective situation in the UK (ICER £22,910/QALY). Annual national cost savings were €4.2M (Belgium), €24.7M (France), €45.1M (Germany), €12.7M (Netherlands) and $244M (US). UK budget increase was £8.4M. Conclusion: Using the 70-gene signature to safely guide chemotherapy de-escalation in clinical high risk patients with ER+/HER2- tumours is cost-effective compared with using clinical assessment alone. Long-term follow-up and outcomes from the MINDACT trial are necessary to address uncertainties in model inputs.SCOPUS: ar.jinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishe

Preferences of Treatment Strategies among Women with Low-Risk DCIS and Oncologists

As ongoing trials study the safety of an active surveillance strategy for low-risk ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), there is a need to explain why particular choices regarding treatment strategies are made by eligible women as well as their oncologists, what factors enter the decision process, and how much each factor affects their choice. To measure preferences for treatment and surveillance strategies, women with newly-diagnosed, primary low-risk DCIS enrolled in the Dutch CONTROL DCIS Registration and LORD trial, and oncologists participating in the Dutch Health Professionals Study were invited to complete a discrete choice experiment (DCE). The relative importance of treatment strategy-related attributes (locoregional intervention, 10-year risk of ipsilateral invasive breast cancer (iIBC), and follow-up interval) were discerned using conditional logit models. A total of n = 172 patients and n = 30 oncologists completed the DCE. Patient respondents had very strong preferences for an active surveillance strategy with no surgery, irrespective of the 10-year risk of iIBC. Extensiveness of the locoregional treatment was consistently shown to be an important factor for patients and oncologists in deciding upon treatment strategies. Risk of iIBC was least important to patients and most important to oncologists. There was a stronger inclination toward a twice-yearly follow-up for both groups compared to annual follow-up

Outcome without any adjuvant systemic treatment in stage I ER+/HER2− breast cancer patients included in the MINDACT trial

Background: Adjuvant systemic treatments (AST) reduce mortality, but have associated short- and long-term toxicities. Careful selection of patients likely to benefit from AST is needed. We evaluated outcome of low-risk breast cancer patients of the EORTC 10041/BIG 3-04 MINDACT trial who received no AST. Patients and methods: Patients with estrogen receptor-positive, HER2-negative, lymph node-negative tumors ≤2 cm who received no AST were matched 1: 1 to patients with similar tumor characteristics treated with adjuvant endocrine therapy (ET), using propensity score matching and exact matching on age, genomic risk (70-gene signature) and grade. In a post hoc analysis, distant metastasis-free interval (DMFI) and overall survival (OS) were assessed by Kaplan–Meier analysis and hazard ratios (HR) by Cox regression. Cumulative incidences of locoregional recurrence (LRR) and contralateral breast cancer (CBC) were assessed with competing risk analyses. Results: At 8 years, DMFI rates were 94.8% [95% confidence interval (CI) 92.7% to 96.9%] in 509 patients receiving no AST, and 97.3% (95% CI 95.8% to 98.8%) in 509 matched patients who received only ET [absolute difference: 2.5%, HR 0.56 (95% CI 0.30-1.03)]. No statistically significant difference was seen in 8-year OS rates, 95.4% (95% CI 93.5% to 97.4%) in patients receiving no AST and 95.6% (95% CI 93.8% to 97.5%) in patients receiving only ET [absolute difference: 0.2%, HR 0.86 (95% CI 0.53-1.41)]. Cumulative incidence rates of LRR and CBC were 4.7% (95% CI 3.0% to 7.0%) and 4.6% (95% CI 2.9% to 6.9%) in patients receiving no AST versus 1.4% (95% CI 0.6% to 2.9%) and 1.5% (95% CI 0.6% to 3.1%) in patients receiving only ET. Conclusions: In patients with stage I low-risk breast cancer, the effect of ET on DMFI was limited, but overall significantly fewer breast cancer events were observed in patients who received ET, after the relatively short follow-up of 8 years. These benefits and side-effects of ET should be discussed with all patients, even those at a very low risk of distant metastasis.SCOPUS: ar.jDecretOANoAutActifinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishe

Surveillance Imaging after Primary Diagnosis of Ductal Carcinoma in Situ

Background Guidelines recommend annual surveillance imaging after diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). Guideline adherence has not been characterized in a contemporary cohort. Purpose To identify uptake and determinants of surveillance imaging in women who underwent treatment for DCIS. Materials and Methods A stratified random sample of women who underwent breast-conserving surgery for primary DCIS between 2008 and 2014 was retrospectively selected from 1330 facilities in the United States. Imaging examinations were recorded from date of diagnosis until first distant recurrence, death, loss to follow-up, or end of study (November 2018). Imaging after treatment was categorized into 10 12-month periods starting 6 months after diagnosis. Primary outcome was per-period receipt of asymptomatic surveillance imaging (mammography, MRI, or US). Secondary outcome was diagnosis of ipsilateral invasive breast cancer. Multivariable logistic regression with repeated measures and generalized estimating equations was used to model receipt of imaging. Rates of diagnosis with ipsilateral invasive breast cancer were compared between women who did and those who did not undergo imaging in the 6-18-month period after diagnosis using inverse probability-weighted Kaplan-Meier estimators. Results A total of 12 559 women (median age, 60 years; IQR, 52-69 years) were evaluated. Uptake of surveillance imaging was 75% in the first period and decreased over time (P &lt; .001). Across the first 5 years after treatment, 52% of women participated in consistent annual surveillance. Surveillance was lower in Black (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 0.80; 95% CI: 0.74, 0.88; P &lt; .001) and Hispanic (OR, 0.82; 95% CI: 0.72, 0.94; P = .004) women than in White women. Women who underwent surveillance in the first period had a higher 6-year rate of diagnosis of invasive cancer (1.6%; 95% CI: 1.3, 1.9) than those who did not (1.1%; 95% CI: 0.7, 1.4; difference: 0.5%; 95% CI: 0.1, 1.0; P = .03). Conclusion Half of women did not consistently adhere to imaging surveillance guidelines across the first 5 years after treatment, with racial disparities in adherence rates.</p

Surveillance Imaging after Primary Diagnosis of Ductal Carcinoma in Situ

Background Guidelines recommend annual surveillance imaging after diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). Guideline adherence has not been characterized in a contemporary cohort. Purpose To identify uptake and determinants of surveillance imaging in women who underwent treatment for DCIS. Materials and Methods A stratified random sample of women who underwent breast-conserving surgery for primary DCIS between 2008 and 2014 was retrospectively selected from 1330 facilities in the United States. Imaging examinations were recorded from date of diagnosis until first distant recurrence, death, loss to follow-up, or end of study (November 2018). Imaging after treatment was categorized into 10 12-month periods starting 6 months after diagnosis. Primary outcome was per-period receipt of asymptomatic surveillance imaging (mammography, MRI, or US). Secondary outcome was diagnosis of ipsilateral invasive breast cancer. Multivariable logistic regression with repeated measures and generalized estimating equations was used to model receipt of imaging. Rates of diagnosis with ipsilateral invasive breast cancer were compared between women who did and those who did not undergo imaging in the 6-18-month period after diagnosis using inverse probability-weighted Kaplan-Meier estimators. Results A total of 12 559 women (median age, 60 years; IQR, 52-69 years) were evaluated. Uptake of surveillance imaging was 75% in the first period and decreased over time (P < .001). Across the first 5 years after treatment, 52% of women participated in consistent annual surveillance. Surveillance was lower in Black (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 0.80; 95% CI: 0.74, 0.88; P < .001) and Hispanic (OR, 0.82; 95% CI: 0.72, 0.94; P = .004) women than in White women. Women who underwent surveillance in the first period had a higher 6-year rate of diagnosis of invasive cancer (1.6%; 95% CI: 1.3, 1.9) than those who did not (1.1%; 95% CI: 0.7, 1.4; difference: 0.5%; 95% CI: 0.1, 1.0; P = .03). Conclusion Half of women did not consistently adhere to imaging surveillance guidelines across the first 5 years after treatment, with racial disparities in adherence rates

Surveillance Imaging after Primary Diagnosis of Ductal Carcinoma in Situ

Background Guidelines recommend annual surveillance imaging after diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). Guideline adherence has not been characterized in a contemporary cohort. Purpose To identify uptake and determinants of surveillance imaging in women who underwent treatment for DCIS. Materials and Methods A stratified random sample of women who underwent breast-conserving surgery for primary DCIS between 2008 and 2014 was retrospectively selected from 1330 facilities in the United States. Imaging examinations were recorded from date of diagnosis until first distant recurrence, death, loss to follow-up, or end of study (November 2018). Imaging after treatment was categorized into 10 12-month periods starting 6 months after diagnosis. Primary outcome was per-period receipt of asymptomatic surveillance imaging (mammography, MRI, or US). Secondary outcome was diagnosis of ipsilateral invasive breast cancer. Multivariable logistic regression with repeated measures and generalized estimating equations was used to model receipt of imaging. Rates of diagnosis with ipsilateral invasive breast cancer were compared between women who did and those who did not undergo imaging in the 6-18-month period after diagnosis using inverse probability-weighted Kaplan-Meier estimators. Results A total of 12 559 women (median age, 60 years; IQR, 52-69 years) were evaluated. Uptake of surveillance imaging was 75% in the first period and decreased over time (P < .001). Across the first 5 years after treatment, 52% of women participated in consistent annual surveillance. Surveillance was lower in Black (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 0.80; 95% CI: 0.74, 0.88; P < .001) and Hispanic (OR, 0.82; 95% CI: 0.72, 0.94; P = .004) women than in White women. Women who underwent surveillance in the first period had a higher 6-year rate of diagnosis of invasive cancer (1.6%; 95% CI: 1.3, 1.9) than those who did not (1.1%; 95% CI: 0.7, 1.4; difference: 0.5%; 95% CI: 0.1, 1.0; P = .03). Conclusion Half of women did not consistently adhere to imaging surveillance guidelines across the first 5 years after treatment, with racial disparities in adherence rates. © RSNA, 2023 Supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Rahbar and Dontchos in this issue