PSY26 Costs and Outcomes of Patients With Haemophilia a (HA) and Factor VIII Inhibitors Treatment: The Immune Tolerance and Economics Retrospective Registry (ITER) Results

n/

Thromboembolic event rate in patients exposed to anti-inhibitor coagulant complex : a meta-analysis of 40-year published data

Anti-inhibitor coagulant complex (AICC), an activated prothrombin complex concentrate, has been available for the treatment of patients with inhibitors since 1977, and thromboembolic events (TEEs) have been reported after infusion of AICC in patients with congenital or acquired hemophilia. With the aim of estimating the TEE incidence rate (IR) related to AICC exposure in these patients, a systematic review of the literature was carried out in Medline, according to PRISMA guidelines, from inception date to March 2017. The IR of TEEs was estimated through a meta-analytic approach by using a generalized linear mixed model based on a Poisson distribution. Thirty-nine studies were included (1980-2016). Overall, 46 TEEs were reported; of these, 13 were reported as disseminated intravascular coagulations, 11 as myocardial infarctions, and 3 as thrombotic cerebrovascular accidents. The pooled TEE IR was 2.87 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.32-25.40) per 100\u2009000 AICC infusions (5.42 in retrospective studies [95% CI, 0.92-31.82]; 1.09 in prospective studies [95% CI, 0.01-238.77]). The TEE rate was 5.09 (95% CI, 0.01-1795.60) per 100\u2009000 AICC infusions administered on demand, whereas no TEEs were reported with prophylaxis. Interestingly, the estimated IR in patients with congenital hemophilia was <0.01 per 100\u2009000 infusions. These findings provide robust evidence of safety of AICC over almost 40 years of published studies

PDB102 Use of Health Care Administrative Databases to Estimate the Burden of Diabetes Mellitus: A Population-Based Study

n/

Compliance, persistence, costs and quality of life in young patients treated with antipsychotic drugs: Results from the COMETA study

Background: Little data is available on the real-world socio-economic burden and outcomes in schizophrenia. This study aimed to assess persistence, compliance, costs and Health-Related Quality-of-Life (HRQoL) in young patients undergoing antipsychotic treatment according to clinical practice.Methods: A naturalistic, longitudinal, multicentre cohort study was conducted: we involved 637 patients aged 18-40 years, with schizophrenia or schizophreniform disorder diagnosed ≤10 years before, enrolled in 86 Italian Mental Health Centres and followed-up for 1 year. Comparisons were conducted between naïve (i.e., patients visiting the centre for the first time and starting a new treatment regimen) and non naïve patients.Results: At enrolment, 84% of patients were taking atypical drugs, 3.7% typical, 10% a combination of the two classes, and 2% were untreated. During follow-up, 23% of patients switched at least once to a different class of treatment, a combination or no treatment. The mean Drug-Attitude-Inventory score was 43.4, with 94.3% of the patients considered compliant by the clinicians. On average, medical costs at baseline were 390.93€/patient-month, mostly for drug treatment (29.5%), psychotherapy (29.2%), and hospitalizations (27.1%). Patients and caregivers lost 3.5 days/patient-month of productivity. During follow-up, attitude toward treatment remained fairly similar, medical costs were generally stable, while productivity, clinical statusand HRQoL significantly improved. While no significantly different overall direct costs trends were found between naïve and non naïve patients, naïve patients showed generally a significant mean higher improvement of clinical outcomes, HRQoL and indirect costs, compared to the others.Conclusions: Our results suggest how tailoring the treatment strategy according to the complex and specific patient needs make it possible to achieve benefits and to allocate more efficiently resources. This study can also provide information on the most relevant items to be considered when conducting cost-effectiveness studies comparing specific alternatives for the treatment of target patients

Patients&#8217;, physicians&#8217;, nurses&#8217;, and pharmacists&#8217; preferences on the characteristics of biologic agents used in the treatment of rheumatic diseases

Objective: To estimate preferences in relevant treatment characteristics evaluated by different groups involved in the management of patients with rheumatic diseases. Subjects and methods: We surveyed patients with rheumatic diseases, and rheumatologists, nurses, and pharmacists with experience in treatment with/provision of biologic drugs for these patients. Through a discrete choice experiment, participants evaluated 16 possible scenarios in which pairs of similarly efficacious treatments were described with six characteristics: 1) frequency of administration; 2) mode and place of administration; 3) manner, helpfulness, efficiency, and courtesy of health personnel; 4) frequency of reactions at the site of drug administration; 5) severity of generalized undesired/allergic reactions; and 6) additional cost. The direction and strength of preferences toward each characteristic level and the relative importance of each characteristic were estimated through a random-effects conditional logistic regression model. Results: In total, 513 patients, 110 rheumatologists, 51 nurses, and 46 pharmacists from 30 centers in Italy participated. Characteristics 3, 4, and 6 were the most important for every subgroup; 1 was least important for patients and rheumatologists, 2 was least important for pharmacists, and 2 and 5 were least important for nurses. For characteristic 2, pharmacists preferred subcutaneous self-injection with a syringe; nurses preferred assisted infusion at an infusion center close to the patient\u2019s home; patients and rheumatologists preferred subcutaneous self-injection with a pen. Conclusion: The different preferences for some characteristics shown by the different groups can play an important role, together with purely clinical aspects, in the choice and consequent benefit of treatments, contributing also to a more satisfactory use of resources