Outpatient costs in pharmaceutically treated diabetes patients with and without a diagnosis of depression in a Dutch primary care setting

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>To assess differences in outpatient costs among pharmaceutically treated diabetes patients with and without a diagnosis of depression in a Dutch primary care setting.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A retrospective case control study over 3 years (2002-2004). Data on 7128 depressed patients and 23772 non-depressed matched controls were available from the electronic medical record system of 20 general practices organized in one large primary care organization in the Netherlands. A total of 393 depressed patients with diabetes and 494 non-depressed patients with diabetes were identified in these records. The data that were extracted from the medical record system concerned only outpatient costs, which included GP care, referrals, and medication.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Mean total outpatient costs per year in depressed diabetes patients were €1039 (SD 743) in the period 2002-2004, which was more than two times as high as in non-depressed diabetes patients (€492, SD 434). After correction for age, sex, type of insurance, diabetes treatment, and comorbidity, the difference in total annual costs between depressed and non-depressed diabetes patients changed from €408 (uncorrected) to €463 (corrected) in multilevel analyses. Correction for comorbidity had the largest impact on the difference in costs between both groups.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Outpatient costs in depressed patients with diabetes are substantially higher than in non-depressed patients with diabetes even after adjusting for confounders. Future research should investigate whether effective treatment of depression among diabetes patients can reduce health care costs in the long term.</p

Physiological models of body composition and human obesity

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licens

Economic evaluation of posaconazole versus fluconazole prophylaxis in patients with graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) in the Netherlands

The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of posaconazole versus fluconazole for the prevention of invasive fungal infections (IFI) in graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) patients in the Netherlands. A decision analytic model was developed based on a double-blind randomized trial that compared posaconazole with fluconazole antifungal prophylaxis in recipients of allogeneic HSCT with GVHD who were receiving immunosuppressive therapy (Ullmann et al., N Engl J Med 356:335–347, 2007). Clinical events were modeled with chance nodes reflecting probabilities of IFIs, IFI-related death, and death from other causes. Data on life expectancy, quality-of-life, medical resource consumption, and costs were obtained from the literature. The total cost with posaconazole amounted to €9,428 (95% uncertainty interval €7,743–11,388), which is €4,566 (€2,460–6,854) more than those with fluconazole. Posaconazole prophylaxis resulted in 0.17 (0.02–0.36) quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained compared to fluconazole prophylaxis, corresponding to an incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €26,225 per QALY gained. A scenario analysis demonstrated that at an increased background IFI risk (from 9% to 15%) the ICER was €13,462 per QALY. Given the underlying data and assumptions, posaconazole prophylaxis is expected to be cost-effective relative to fluconazole in recipients of allogeneic HSCT developing GVHD in the Netherlands. The cost-effectiveness of posaconazole depends on the IFI risk, which can vary by hospital

Cost-effectiveness of problem-solving treatment in comparison with usual care for primary care patients with menthal health problems: a randomized trial

BACKGROUND: Mental health problems are common and are associated with increased disability and health care costs. Problem-Solving Treatment (PST) delivered to these patients by nurses in primary care might be efficient. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of PST by mental health nurses compared with usual care (UC) by the general practitioner for primary care patients with mental health problems. METHODS: An economic evaluation from a societal perspective was performed alongside a randomized clinical trial. Patients with a positive General Health Questionnaire score (score ≥ 4) and who visited their general practitioner at least three times during the past 6 months were eligible. Outcome measures were improvement on the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and QALYs based on the EQ-5D. Resource use was measured using a validated questionnaire. Missing cost and effect data were imputed using multiple imputation techniques. Bootstrapping was used to analyze costs and cost-effectiveness of PST compared with UC. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences in clinical outcomes at 9 months. Mean total costs were €4795 in the PST group and €6857 in the UC group. Costs were not statistically significantly different between the two groups (95% CI -4698;359). The cost-effectiveness analysis showed that PST was cost-effective in comparison with UC. Sensitivity analyses confirmed these findings. CONCLUSIONS: PST delivered by nurses seems cost-effective in comparison with UC. However, these results should be interpreted with caution, since the difference in total costs was mainly caused by 3 outliers with extremely high indirect costs in the UC group. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Nederlands Trial Register ISRCTN5102101

Implementing the chronic care model for frail older adults in the Netherlands: study protocol of ACT (frail older adults: care in transition)

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Care for older adults is facing a number of challenges: health problems are not consistently identified at a timely stage, older adults report a lack of autonomy in their care process, and care systems are often confronted with the need for better coordination between health care professionals. We aim to address these challenges by introducing the geriatric care model, based on the chronic care model, and to evaluate its effects on the quality of life of community-dwelling frail older adults.</p> <p>Methods/design</p> <p>In a 2-year stepped-wedge cluster randomised clinical trial with 6-monthly measurements, the chronic care model will be compared with usual care. The trial will be carried out among 35 primary care practices in two regions in the Netherlands. Per region, practices will be randomly allocated to four allocation arms designating the starting point of the intervention. <it>Participants</it>: 1200 community-dwelling older adults aged 65 or over and their primary informal caregivers. Primary care physicians will identify frail individuals based on a composite definition of frailty and a polypharmacy criterion. Final inclusion criterion: scoring 3 or more on a disability case-finding tool. <it>Intervention</it>: Every 6 months patients will receive a geriatric in-home assessment by a practice nurse, followed by a tailored care plan. Expert teams will manage and train practice nurses. Patients with complex care needs will be reviewed in interdisciplinary consultations. <it>Evaluation</it>: We will perform an effect evaluation, an economic evaluation, and a process evaluation. Primary outcome is quality of life as measured with the Short Form-12 questionnaire. Effect analyses will be based on the “intention-to-treat” principle, using multilevel regression analysis. Cost measurements will be administered continually during the study period. A cost-effectiveness analysis and cost-utility analysis will be conducted comparing mean total costs to functional status, care needs and QALYs. We will investigate the level of implementation, barriers and facilitators to successful implementation and the extent to which the intervention manages to achieve the transition necessary to overcome challenges in elderly care.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>This is one of the first studies assessing the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and implementation process of the chronic care model for frail community-dwelling older adults.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>The Netherlands National Trial Register NTR2160.</p

The Cost-Effectiveness of Tuberculosis Preventive Therapy for HIV-Infected Individuals in Southern India: A Trial-Based Analysis

Regimens for isoniazid-based preventive therapy (IPT) for tuberculosis (TB) in HIV-infected individuals have not been widely adopted given concerns regarding efficacy, adherence and drug resistance. Further, the cost-effectiveness of IPT has not been studied in India.We used an HIV/TB model to project TB incidence, life expectancy, cost and incremental cost-effectiveness of six months of isoniazid plus ethambutol (6EH), thirty-six months of isoniazid (36H) and no IPT for HIV-infected patients in India. Model input parameters included a median CD4 count of 324 cells/mm(3), and a rate ratio of developing TB of 0.35 for 6EH and 0.22 for 36H at three years as compared to no IPT. Results of 6EH and 36H were also compared to six months of isoniazid (6H), three months of isoniazid plus rifampin (3RH) and three months of isoniazid plus rifapentine (3RPTH).Projected TB incidence decreased in the 6EH and 36H regimens by 51% and 62% respectively at three-year follow-up compared to no IPT. Without IPT, projected life expectancy was 136.1 months at a lifetime per person cost of $5,630. 6EH increased life expectancy by 0.8 months at an additional per person cost of$100 (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $1,490/year of life saved (YLS)). 36H further increased life expectancy by 0.2 months with an additional per person cost of$55 (ICER of $3,120/YLS). The projected clinical impact of 6EH was comparable to 6H and 3RH; however when compared to these other options, 6EH was no longer cost-effective given the high cost of ethambutol. Results were sensitive to baseline CD4 count and adherence.Three, six and thirty-six-month regimens of isoniazid-based therapy are effective in preventing TB. Three months of isoniazid plus rifampin and six-months of isoniazid are similarly cost-effective in India, and should be considered part of HIV care