Management of Febrile Neutropenia - a German Prospective Hospital Cost Analysis in Lymphoproliferative Disorders, Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer, and Primary Breast Cancer

Background: Febrile neutropenia/leukopenia (FN/FL) is the most frequent dose-limiting toxicity of myelosuppressive chemotherapy, but German data on economic consequences are limited. Patients and Methods: A prospective, multicentre, longitudinal, observational study was carried out to evaluate the occurrence of FN/FL and its impact on health resource utilization and costs in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), lymphoproliferative disorder (LPD), and primary breast cancer (PBC) patients. Costs are presented from a hospital perspective. Results: A total of 325 consecutive patients (47% LPD, 37% NSCLC, 16% PBC; 46% women; 38% age >= 65 years) with 68 FN/FL episodes were evaluated. FN/FL occurred in 22% of the LPD patients, 8% of the NSCLC patients, and 27% of the PBC patients. 55 FN/FL episodes were associated with at least 1 hospital stay (LPD n = 34, NSCLC n = 10, PBC n = 11). Mean (median) cost per FN/FL episode requiring hospital care amounted to (sic) 3,950 ((sic) 2,355) and varied between (sic) 4,808 ((sic) 3,056) for LPD, (sic) 3,627 ((sic) 2,255) for NSCLC, and (sic) 1,827 ((sic) 1,969) for PBC patients. 12 FN/FL episodes (LPD n = 9, NSCLC n = 3) accounted for 60% of the total expenses. Main cost drivers were hospitalization and drugs (60 and 19% of the total costs). Conclusions: FN/FL treatment has economic relevance for hospitals. Costs vary between tumour types, being significantly higher for LPD compared to PBC patients. The impact of clinical characteristics on asymmetrically distributed costs needs further evaluation

High prevalence of bronchiectasis is linked to HTLV-1-associated inflammatory disease.

BACKGROUND: Human T-lymphotropic virus type 1 (HTLV-1), a retrovirus, is the causative agent of HTLV-1-associated myelopathy/tropical spastic paraparesis (HAM/TSP) and adult T-cell leukaemia/lymphoma (ATLL). The reported association with pulmonary disease such as bronchiectasis is less certain. METHODS: A retrospective case review of a HTLV-1 seropositive cohort attending a national referral centre. The cohort was categorised into HTLV-1 symptomatic patients (SPs) (ATLL, HAM/TSP, Strongyloidiasis and HTLV associated inflammatory disease (HAID)) and HTLV-1 asymptomatic carriers (ACs). The cohort was reviewed for diagnosis of bronchiectasis. RESULT: 34/246 ACs and 30/167 SPs had been investigated for respiratory symptoms by computer tomography (CT) with productive cough +/- recurrent chest infections the predominant indications. Bronchiectasis was diagnosed in one AC (1/246) and 13 SPs (2 HAID, 1 ATLL, 10 HAM/TSP) (13/167, RR 19.2 95 % CI 2.5-14.5, p = 0.004) with high resolution CT. In the multivariate analysis ethnicity (p = 0.02) and disease state (p < 0.001) were independent predictors for bronchiectasis. The relative risk of bronchiectasis in SPs was 19.2 (95 % CI 2.5-14.5, p = 0.004) and in HAM/TSP patients compared with all other categories 8.4 (95 % CI 2.7-26.1, p = 0.0002). Subjects not of African/Afro-Caribbean ethnicity had an increased prevalence of bronchiectasis (RR 3.45 95 % 1.2-9.7, p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Bronchiectasis was common in the cohort (3.4 %). Risk factors were a prior diagnosis of HAM/TSP and ethnicity but not HTLV-1 viral load, age and gender. The spectrum of HTLV-associated disease should now include bronchiectasis and HTLV serology should be considered in patients with unexplained bronchiectasis

Bronchiectasis insanity:Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results?

Bronchiectasis is an increasingly common disease with a significant impact on quality of life and morbidity of affected patients. It is also a very heterogeneous disease with numerous different underlying etiologies and presentations. Most treatments for bronchiectasis are based on low-quality evidence; consequently, no treatments have been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration or the European Medicines Agency for the treatment of bronchiectasis. The last several years have seen numerous clinical trials in which the investigational agent, thought to hold great promise, did not demonstrate a clinically or statistically significant benefit. This commentary will review the likely reasons for these disappointing results and a potential approach that may have a greater likelihood of defining evidence-based treatment for bronchiectasis

The economic burden of bronchiectasis - known and unknown:a systematic review

Abstract Background The increasing prevalence and recognition of bronchiectasis in clinical practice necessitates a better understanding of the economic disease burden to improve the management and achieve better clinical and economic outcomes. This study aimed to assess the economic burden of bronchiectasis based on a review of published literature. Methods A systematic literature review was conducted using MEDLINE, Embase, EconLit and Cochrane databases to identify publications (1 January 2001 to 31 December 2016) on the economic burden of bronchiectasis in adults. Results A total of 26 publications were identified that reported resource use and costs associated with management of bronchiectasis. Two US studies reported annual incremental costs of bronchiectasis versus matched controls of US$5681 and US$2319 per patient. Twenty-four studies reported on hospitalization rates or duration of hospitalization for patients with bronchiectasis. Mean annual hospitalization rates per patient, reported in six studies, ranged from 0.3–1.3, while mean annual age-adjusted hospitalization rates, reported in four studies, ranged from 1.8–25.7 per 100,000 population. The average duration of hospitalization, reported in 12 studies, ranged from 2 to 17 days. Eight publications reported management costs of bronchiectasis. Total annual management costs of €3515 and €4672 per patient were reported in two Spanish studies. Two US studies reported total costs of approximately US$26,000 in patients without exacerbations, increasing to US$36,00–37,000 in patients with exacerbations. Similarly, a Spanish study reported higher total annual costs for patients with > 2 exacerbations per year (€7520) compared with those without exacerbations (€3892). P. aeruginosa infection increased management costs by US$31,551 to US$56,499, as reported in two US studies, with hospitalization being the main cost driver. Conclusions The current literature suggests that the economic burden of bronchiectasis in society is significant. Hospitalization costs are the major driver behind these costs, especially in patients with frequent exacerbations. However, the true economic burden of bronchiectasis is likely to be underestimated because most studies were retrospective, used ICD-9-CM coding to identify patients, and often ignored outpatient burden and cost. We present a conceptual framework to facilitate a more comprehensive assessment of the true burden of bronchiectasis for individuals, healthcare systems and society

Raising awareness of bronchiectasis in primary care:overview of diagnosis and management strategies in adults

Bronchiectasis is a chronic lung disease characterised by recurrent infection, inflammation, persistent cough and sputum production. The disease is increasing in prevalence, requiring a greater awareness of the disease across primary and secondary care. Mild and moderate cases of bronchiectasis in adults can often be managed by primary care clinicians. Initial assessments and long-term treatment plans that include both pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments, however, should be undertaken in collaboration with a secondary care team that includes physiotherapists and specialists in respiratory medicine. Bronchiectasis is often identified in patients with other lung diseases, such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma, and in a lesser but not insignificant number of patients with other inflammatory diseases, such as rheumatoid arthritis and inflammatory bowel disease. Overall goals of therapy are to prevent exacerbations, improve symptoms, improve quality of life and preserve lung function. Prompt treatment of exacerbations with antibiotic therapy is important to limit the impact of exacerbations on quality of life and lung function decline. Patient education and cooperation with health-care providers to implement treatment plans are key to successful disease management. It is important for the primary care provider to work with secondary care providers to develop an individualised treatment plan to optimise care with the goal to delay disease progression. Here, we review the diagnosis and treatment of bronchiectasis with a focus on practical considerations that will be useful to primary care.</p

A formula for predicting emphysema extent in combined idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis and emphysema

Background: No single pulmonary function test captures the functional effect of emphysema in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF). Without experienced radiologists, other methods are needed to determine emphysema extent. Here, we report the development and validation of a formula to predict emphysema extent in patients with IPF and emphysema. Methods: The development cohort included 76 patients with combined IPF and emphysema at the Royal Brompton Hospital, London, United Kingdom. The formula was derived using stepwise regression to generate the weighted combination of pulmonary function data that fitted best with emphysema extent on high-resolution computed tomography. Test cohorts included patients from two clinical trials (n = 455 [n = 174 with emphysema]; NCT00047645, NCT00075998) and a real-world cohort from the Royal Brompton Hospital (n = 191 [n = 110 with emphysema]). The formula is only applicable for patients with IPF and concomitant emphysema and accordingly was not used to detect the presence or absence of emphysema. Results: The formula was: predicted emphysema extent = 12.67 + (0.92 x percent predicted forced vital capacity) – (0.65 x percent predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second) – (0.52 x percent predicted carbon monoxide diffusing capacity). A significant relationship between the formula and observed emphysema extent was found in both cohorts (R2 = 0.25, P < 0.0001; R2 = 0.47, P < 0.0001, respectively). In both, the formula better predicted observed emphysema extent versus individual pulmonary function tests. A 15% emphysema extent threshold, calculated using the formula, identified a significant difference in absolute changes from baseline in forced vital capacity at Week 48 in patients with baseline-predicted emphysema extent < 15% versus ≥ 15% (P = 0.0105). Conclusion: The formula, designed for use in patients with IPF and emphysema, demonstrated enhanced ability to predict emphysema extent versus individual pulmonary function tests. Trial registration: NCT00047645; NCT00075998