Understanding Patterns of Emergency Department (ED) Use over time in Ontario to plan new EDs for the future

Introduction The Applied Health Research Question (AHRQ) portfolio is an initiative funded by the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, leveraging the linked data and scientific expertise at ICES to answer questions that directly impact healthcare policy, planning or practice. Objectives and Approach The objective of this project was to evaluate historical patterns of emergency department (ED) use to better plan for a new emergency Department in Kingston and to better understand the factors contributing to increasing ED utilization. Emergency departments across Ontario continue to see consistent increases in volume at rates exceeding expected volume growth due to population growth alone. Some hospitals across the province observe significantly higher volume increases compared to the provincial average. Results From 2006/07 to 2016/17, rate and volume of emergency department visits in Ontario increased 8.82% and 19.87% respectively. Throughout the same period, emergency department visit rate and volume at Kingston General Hospital increased 20.70%, and 27.2%. Using historical data and projected population growth by age and sex, we were able to estimate that emergency department volume would increase at least 11.94% by 2025 due to estimated shifts in population size and distribution (by age and sex) alone. From 2006/07 to 2016/17, the greatest rate of increase in reason for ED visits was mental/behavioral problems. Throughout this period the increase in volume and rate of ED visits due to mental/behavioural problems was 274.46% and 259.59% respectively. Conclusion/Implications Population-specific volume projections and historical trends in ED use can be utilized for planning ED operations to improve efficiency and patient care quality. This has been used to inform the redesign of the ED at the Kingston Health Sciences Centre to ensure it will meet the needs of the community

Rates of primary and secondary treatments for patients on active surveillance for localized prostate cancer—A population‐based cohort study

Abstract Background The rate of primary and secondary treatment while on active surveillance (AS) for localized prostate cancer at the general population level is unknown. Our objective was to determine the patterns of secondary treatments after primary surgery or radiation for patients who undergo AS. Methods This was a population‐based retrospective cohort study of men aged 50‐80 years old in Ontario, Canada, between 2008 and 2016. We identified 26 742 patients with prostate cancer, a Gleason grade score ≤7, and an index prostate‐specific antigen ≤10 ng/mL. Patients were categorized as undergoing AS with or without delayed primary treatment (DT; treatment >6 months after diagnosis) versus immediate treatment (IT; treatment ≤6 months). Patients receiving DT and IT were propensity score matched and the rate of secondary treatment (surgery or radiation ± androgen deprivation treatment) was compared using Cox proportional hazards models. Results We identified 10 214 patients who underwent AS and 11 884 patients who underwent IT. Among patients undergoing AS, 3724 (36.5%) eventually underwent DT and among them, 406 (10.9%) underwent secondary treatment. The median time to DT was 1.2 years (IQR 0.5‐8.1 years). The relative rate of undergoing secondary treatment was similar in the DT vs IT group (HR 0.92; 95% CI: 0.79‐1.08). The risk of death in the DT group was higher compared to patients who did not undergo treatment (HR 1.23, 95% CI: 1.01‐1.49). Conclusions Among patients with localized prostate cancer on AS, one third undergo DT. The rate of secondary treatment was similar between the DT and IT groups. Patients in the DT group may experience a higher risk of mortality compared to those who remained on AS

Real-World Cost-Effectiveness of Bevacizumab With First-Line Combination Chemotherapy in Patients With Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: Population-Based Retrospective Cohort Studies in Three Canadian Provinces

Background. Real-world evidence can be a valuable tool when clinical trial data are incomplete or uncertain. Bevacizumab was adopted as first-line therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) based on significant survival improvements in initial clinical trials; however, survival benefit diminished in subsequent analyses. Consequently, there is uncertainty surrounding the cost-effectiveness of bevacizumab therapy achieved in practice. Objective. To assess real-world cost-effectiveness of first-line bevacizumab with irinotecan-based chemotherapy versus irinotecan-based chemotherapy alone for mCRC in British Columbia (BC), Saskatchewan, and Ontario, Canada. Methods. Using provincial cancer registries and linked administrative databases, we identified mCRC patients who initiated publicly funded irinotecan-based chemotherapy, with or without bevacizumab, in 2000 to 2015. We compared bevacizumab-treated patients to historical controls (treated before bevacizumab funding) and contemporaneous controls (receiving chemotherapy without bevacizumab), using inverse-probability-of-treatment weighting with propensity scores to balance baseline covariates. We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) using 5-year cost and survival adjusted for censoring, with bootstrapping to characterize uncertainty. We also conducted one-way sensitivity analysis for key drivers of cost-effectiveness. Results. The cohorts included 12,112 (Ontario), 1,161 (Saskatchewan), and 2,977 (BC) patients. Bevacizumab significantly increased treatment costs, with mean ICERs between $78,000 and$84,000/LYG (life-year gained) in the contemporaneous comparisons and $75,000 and$101,000/LYG in the historical comparisons. Reducing the cost of bevacizumab by 50% brought ICERs in all comparisons below $61,000/LYG. Limitations. Residual confounding in observational data may bias results, while the use of original list prices overestimates current bevacizumab cost. Conclusion. The addition of bevacizumab to irinotecan-based chemotherapy extended survival for mCRC patients but at significant cost. At original list prices bevacizumab can only be considered cost-effective with certainty at a willingness-to-pay threshold over$100,000/LYG, but price reductions or discounts have a significant impact on cost-effectiveness