Utilization of acute and long-term care in the last year of life: comparison with survivors in a population-based study

Background. It is well-known that the use of care services is most intensive in the last phase of life. However, so far only a few determinants of end-of-life care utilization are known. The aims of this study were to describe the utilization of acute and long-term care among older adults in their last year of life as compared to those not in their last year of life, and to examine which of a broad range of determinants can account for observed differences in care utilization. Methods. Data were used from the Longitudinal Aging Study Amsterdam (LASA). In a random, age and sex stratified population-based cohort of 3107 persons aged 55 ? 85 years at baseline and representative of the Netherlands, follow-up cycles took place at 3, 6 and 9 years. Those who died within one year directly after a cycle were defined as the "end-of-life group" (n = 262), and those who survived at least three years after a cycle were defined as the "survivors". Utilization of acute and long-term care services, including professional and informal care, were recorded at each cycle, as well as a broad range of health-related and psychosocial variables. Results. The end-of-life group used more care than the survivors. In the younger-old this difference was most pronounced for acute care, and in the older-old, for long-term care. Use of both acute and long-term home care in the last year of life was fully accounted for by health problems. Use of institutional care at the end of life was partly accounted for by health problems, but was not fully explained by the determinants included. Conclusion. This study shows that severity of health problems are decisive in the explanation of the increase in use of care services towards the end-of-life. This information is essential for an appropriate allocation of professional health care to the benefit of older persons themselves and their informal caregivers. © 2009 Pot et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd

Costs and advance directives at the end of life: a case of the ‘Coaching Older Adults and Carers to have their preferences Heard (COACH)’ trial

Background Total costs associated with care for older people nearing the end of life and the cost variations related with end of life care decisions are not well documented in the literature. Healthcare utilisation and associated health care costs for a group of older Australians who entered Transition Care following an acute hospital admission were calculated. Costs were differentiated according to a number of health care decisions and outcomes including advance directives (ADs). Methods Study participants were drawn from the Coaching Older Adults and Carers to have their preferences Heard (COACH) trial funded by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council. Data collected included total health care costs, the type of (and when) ADs were completed and the place of death. Two-step endogenous treatment-regression models were employed to test the relationship between costs and a number of variables including completion of ADs. Results The trial recruited 230 older adults with mean age 84 years. At the end of the trial, 53 had died and 80 had completed ADs. Total healthcare costs were higher for younger participants and those who had died. No statistically significant association was found between costs and completion of ADs. Conclusion For our frail study population, the completion of ADs did not have an effect on health care utilisation and costs. Further research is needed to substantiate these findings in larger and more diverse clinical cohorts of older people

Effects of Anacetrapib in Patients with Atherosclerotic Vascular Disease

BACKGROUND: Patients with atherosclerotic vascular disease remain at high risk for cardiovascular events despite effective statin-based treatment of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels. The inhibition of cholesteryl ester transfer protein (CETP) by anacetrapib reduces LDL cholesterol levels and increases high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol levels. However, trials of other CETP inhibitors have shown neutral or adverse effects on cardiovascular outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial involving 30,449 adults with atherosclerotic vascular disease who were receiving intensive atorvastatin therapy and who had a mean LDL cholesterol level of 61 mg per deciliter (1.58 mmol per liter), a mean non-HDL cholesterol level of 92 mg per deciliter (2.38 mmol per liter), and a mean HDL cholesterol level of 40 mg per deciliter (1.03 mmol per liter). The patients were assigned to receive either 100 mg of anacetrapib once daily (15,225 patients) or matching placebo (15,224 patients). The primary outcome was the first major coronary event, a composite of coronary death, myocardial infarction, or coronary revascularization. RESULTS: During the median follow-up period of 4.1 years, the primary outcome occurred in significantly fewer patients in the anacetrapib group than in the placebo group (1640 of 15,225 patients [10.8%] vs. 1803 of 15,224 patients [11.8%]; rate ratio, 0.91; 95% confidence interval, 0.85 to 0.97; P=0.004). The relative difference in risk was similar across multiple prespecified subgroups. At the trial midpoint, the mean level of HDL cholesterol was higher by 43 mg per deciliter (1.12 mmol per liter) in the anacetrapib group than in the placebo group (a relative difference of 104%), and the mean level of non-HDL cholesterol was lower by 17 mg per deciliter (0.44 mmol per liter), a relative difference of -18%. There were no significant between-group differences in the risk of death, cancer, or other serious adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with atherosclerotic vascular disease who were receiving intensive statin therapy, the use of anacetrapib resulted in a lower incidence of major coronary events than the use of placebo. (Funded by Merck and others; Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN48678192 ; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01252953 ; and EudraCT number, 2010-023467-18 .)

EQ-5D health utility values in the treatment Of seasonal grass pollen induced rhinoconjunctivitis

Rationale: Standard clinical efficacy endpoints in allergen immunotherapy trials include the daily Rhinoconjunctivitis Symptom Score (RSS) and daily Rhinoconjunctivitis Medication Score (RMS). However, measurement of subjects' QoL in terms of health utility is also necessary to characterise changes in health status. In this study, we aimed to determine a relationship between standard efficacy endpoints and the health utility. Methods: Data from a 5-year DBPC phase III trial (GT-08, ALK, Denmark) in subjects with grass pollen induced rhinoconjunctivitis were analysed. During each pollen season, subjects recorded daily their RSS and RMS and weekly the EQ-5D index. A two-stage model was constructed: 1) binomial modelling of subjects with “perfect health” (EQ-5D utility=1) and 2) Gaussian modelling of EQ-5D utilities< 1. The utility during each grass pollen season was calculated as area under the curve. Results: A total of 16,690 weekly and 137,792 daily EQ-5D observations were recorded over the trial period. The binomial model showed the daily RSS and RMS to be the two most important predictors of “perfect health” (RSS: OR=0.729; p< 0.001; RMS: OR=0.841; p< 0.001). The Gaussian model of subjects with “imperfect health” confirmed this correlation. Based on relationship the average annual utility was estimated to 2.2 QALD. Conclusions: In a clinical trial including subjects with grass pollen induced rhinoconjunctivitis, the daily RSS and RMS were found to be suitable predictors of the EQ-5D health utility. The findings confirm the beneficial impact of the SQ-standardised Timothy grass allergy immunotherapy tablet (75,000 SQ-T/2,800 BAU, ALK) on health utilities with a clinical relevant QALY gain

Burden of allergic respiratory disease:a systematic review

Additional file 1: Table S1. Database search strategies; Figure S1. RQLQ domain scores by allergy phenotype. Studies are listed from the top as SAR, Mixed, and PAR; Figure S2 SF-36 domain scores by allergy phenotype. Studies are listed from the top as SAR, Mixed, and PAR