Physical and mental quality of life in adult patients with haemophilia in Belgium: the impact of financial issues

In Belgium, where haemophilia affects approximately 1:7000 people (2011), data on patients' quality of life (QoL) is scarce. This project aims to assess physical and mental QoL (P-QoL and M-QoL) simultaneously, and to analyse the influence of different variables on these two aspects of QoL. After Ethics Committee approval, we contacted 84 adult haemophilia A (HA) and haemophilia B (HB) patients, without current inhibitors, on replacement therapy (on-demand or secondary prophylaxis), regularly followed up at our comprehensive treatment centre. Seventy-one (n = 59 HA, n = 12 HB) replied to our questionnaire, which included the SF36v2 QoL assessment forms. We analysed two groups of variables: one including variables previously associated with decreased QoL, and another including variables with unclear impact on QoL (e.g., patients' understanding of haemophilia-related issues, economical concerns). In our population (mean ± SD age: 45.2 ± 14.7 years old), P-QoL appeared more reduced than M-QoL. P-QoL was strongly influenced by the number of arthropathies while M-QoL was primarily affected by patients' concern of personal costs due to haemophilia. Among this latter group, having knowledge of insurance coverage had a positive impact on M-QoL. Scores did not depend on haemophilia type. QoL was impaired in our haemophilia patients. A simultaneous assessment of P-QoL and M-QoL confirmed the benefit of primary prophylaxis in P-QoL, while originally pointing out the major burden of patients' concerns and poor understanding of haemophilia-related economical issues on their M-QoL. This might become a particularly challenging issue in times of financial crisis

Cost-utility analysis of eprosartan compared to enalapril in primary prevention and nitrendipine in secondary prevention in Europe &- the HEALTH model

Objective: To investigate the cost-utility of eprosartan versus enalapril (primary prevention) and versus nitrendipine (secondary prevention) on the basis of head-to-head evidence from randomized controlled trials. Methods: The HEALTH model (Health Economic Assessment of Life with Teveten® for Hypertension) is an object-oriented probabilistic Monte Carlo simulation model. It combines a Framingham-based risk calculation with a systolic blood pressure approach to estimate the relative risk reduction of cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events based on recent meta-analyses. In secondary prevention, an additional risk reduction is modeled for eprosartan according to the results of the MOSES study ("Morbidity and Mortality after Stroke - Eprosartan Compared to Nitrendipine for Secondary Prevention"). Costs and utilities were derived from published estimates considering European country-specific health-care payer perspectives. Results: Comparing eprosartan to enalapril in a primary prevention setting the mean costs per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained were highest in Germany (24,036) followed by Belgium (17,863), the UK (16,364), Norway ( 13,834), Sweden ( 11,691) and Spain ( 7918). In a secondary prevention setting (eprosartan vs. nitrendipine) the highest costs per QALY gained have been observed in Germany (9136) followed by the UK (6008), Norway (1695), Sweden (907), Spain (-2054) and Belgium (-5767). Conclusions: Considering a 30,000 willingness-to-pay threshold per QALY gained, eprosartan is cost-effective as compared to enalapril in primary prevention (patients 50 years old and a systolic blood pressure 160 mm Hg) and cost-effective as compared to nitrendipine in secondary prevention (all investigated patients). © 2009, International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR)