Background and aims: The potentially high costs of care associated with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) are recognised but we have little knowledge of the scale, profile, or determinants of these costs in the UK. This study aimed to describe costs of illness for a group of IBD patients and determine factors associated with increased healthcare costs. Setting: A university hospital serving a target population of approximately 330 000. Patients and methods: A six month cohort of IBD patients receiving any form of secondary care was identified, comprising 307 cases of ulcerative (or indeterminate) colitis and 172 cases of Crohn's disease. Demographic and clinical data were abstracted from clinical records and individual resource use was itemised for all attributable costs (including extraintestinal manifestations). Item costs were derived from national and local sources. Cost data were expressed as mean six month costs per patient (with 95% confidence interval (CI)) obtained using non-parametric bootstrapping. Determinants of cost were analysed using generalised linear regression modelling. A postal survey of patients was undertaken to examine indirect costs, out of pocket expenses, and primary care visits. Results: Inpatient services (medical and/or surgical) were required by 67 patients (14%) but accounted for 49% of total secondary care costs. Drug costs accounted for less than a quarter of total costs. Individual patient costs ranged from £73 to £33 254 per six months. Mean (95% CI) six month costs per patient were £1256 (£988, £1721) for colitis and £1652 (£1221, £2239) for Crohn's disease. Hospitalisation, disease severity grade, and disease extent correlated positively with cost of illness but costs were independent of age or sex. Compared with quiescent cases of IBD, disease relapse was associated with a 2-3-fold increase in costs for non-hospitalised cases and a 20-fold increase in costs for hospitalised cases. Survey data suggested average six month costs were ,£30 per patient for primary care visits (both diseases) and median loss of earnings were £239 for colitis and £299 for Crohn's disease. Conclusions: This study represents the first detailed characterisation of the scale and determinants of costs of illness for IBD in a British hospital. Hospitalisation affected a minority of sufferers but accounted for half of the total direct costs falling on the healthcare system.

The COVID STEROID 2 Trial Group IMPORTANCE A daily dose with 6 mg of dexamethasone is recommended for up to 10 days in patients with severe and critical COVID-19, but a higher dose may benefit those with more severe disease. OBJECTIVE To assess the effects of 12 mg/d vs 6 mg/d of dexamethasone in patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxemia. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS A multicenter, randomized clinical trial was conducted between August 2020 and May 2021 at 26 hospitals in Europe and India and included 1000 adults with confirmed COVID-19 requiring at least 10 L/min of oxygen or mechanical ventilation. End of 90-day follow-up was on August 19, 2021. INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized 1:1 to 12 mg/d of intravenous dexamethasone (n = 503) or 6 mg/d of intravenous dexamethasone (n = 497) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESThe primary outcome was the number of days alive without life support (invasive mechanical ventilation, circulatory support, or kidney replacement therapy) at 28 days and was adjusted for stratification variables. Of the 8 prespecified secondary outcomes, 5 are included in this analysis (the number of days alive without life support at 90 days, the number of days alive out of the hospital at 90 days, mortality at 28 days and at 90 days, and Ն1 serious adverse reactions at 28 days). RESULTSOf the 1000 randomized patients, 982 were included (median age, 65 [IQR, 55-73] years; 305 [31%] women) and primary outcome data were available for 971 (491 in the 12 mg of dexamethasone group and 480 in the 6 mg of dexamethasone group). The median number of days alive without life support was 22.0 days (IQR, 6.0-28.0 days) in the 12 mg of dexamethasone group and 20.5 days (IQR, 4.0-28.0 days) in the 6 mg of dexamethasone group (adjusted mean difference, 1.3 days [95% CI, 0-2.6 days]; P = .07). Mortality at 28 days was 27.1% in the 12 mg of dexamethasone group vs 32.3% in the 6 mg of dexamethasone group (adjusted relative risk, 0.86 [99% CI, 0.68-1.08]). Mortality at 90 days was 32.0% in the 12 mg of dexamethasone group vs 37.7% in the 6 mg of dexamethasone group (adjusted relative risk, 0.87 [99% CI, 0.70-1.07]). Serious adverse reactions, including septic shock and invasive fungal infections, occurred in 11.3% in the 12 mg of dexamethasone group vs 13.4% in the 6 mg of dexamethasone group (adjusted relative risk, 0.83 [99% CI, 0.54-1.29]).CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Among patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxemia, 12 mg/d of dexamethasone compared with 6 mg/d of dexamethasone did not result in statistically significantly more days alive without life support at 28 days. However, the trial may have been underpowered to identify a significant difference.

No abstract

BackgroundWith the exponential increase in mobile phone users in India, a large number of public health initiatives are leveraging information technology and mobile devices for health care delivery. Given the considerable financial and human resources being invested in these initiatives, it is important to ascertain their role in strengthening health care systems.ObjectiveWe undertook this review to identify the published mobile health (mHealth) or telemedicine initiatives in India in terms of their current role in health systems strengthening. The review classifies these initiatives based on the disease areas, geographical distribution, and target users and assesses the quality of the available literature.MethodsA search of the literature was done to identify mHealth or telemedicine articles published between January 1997 and June 2017 from India. The electronic bibliographic databases and registries searched included MEDLINE, EMBASE, Joanna Briggs Institute Database, and Clinical Trial Registry of India. The World Health Organization health system building block framework was used to categorize the published initiatives as per their role in the health system. Quality assessment of the selected articles was done using the Cochrane risk of bias assessment and National Institutes of Health, US tools.ResultsThe combined search strategies yielded 2150 citations out of which 318 articles were included (primary research articles=125; reviews and system architectural, case studies, and opinion articles=193). A sharp increase was seen after 2012, driven primarily by noncommunicable disease–focused articles. Majority of the primary studies had their sites in the south Indian states, with no published articles from Jammu and Kashmir and north-eastern parts of India. Service delivery was the primary focus of 57.6% (72/125) of the selected articles. A majority of these articles had their focus on 1 (36.0%, 45/125) or 2 (45.6%, 57/125) domains of health system, most frequently service delivery and health workforce. Initiatives commonly used client education as a tool for improving the health system. More than 91.2% (114/125) of the studies, which lacked a sample size justification, had used convenience sampling. Methodological rigor of the selected trials (n=11) was assessed to be poor as majority of the studies had a high risk for bias in at least 2 categories.ConclusionsIn conclusion, mHealth initiatives are being increasingly tested to improve health care delivery in India. Our review highlights the poor quality of the current evidence base and an urgent need for focused research aimed at generating high-quality evidence on the efficacy, user acceptability, and cost-effectiveness of mHealth interventions aimed toward health systems strengthening. A pragmatic approach would be to include an implementation research component into the existing and proposed digital health initiatives to support the generation of evidence for health systems strengthening on strategically important outcomes.

Every year about 150,000 people develop end stage kidney disease (ESKD) in India, most of whom die without receiving treatment. In 2008, the state of Andhra Pradesh started public funding for hemodialysis (HD). We evaluated the coverage pattern, cost of care and outcomes of patients treated under this scheme. Unique identifiers and billing codes for HD, vascular access and hospitalisation were identified from claims database to construct utilisation, cost and outcome for subjects from 2008 to 2012. Outcomes were classified as death, dialysis discontinuation and kidney transplantation. Costs of HD, vascular access, and hospitalizations were calculated. A total of 13,118 beneficiaries (1.36% of all claimants, mean age 44 years, 73% males) received HD during the study period. The number of people who received HD increased from 29.5 pmp in 2008-09 to 122.2 pmp in 2012-13. Of all patients, 10% died and 37% dropped out in first 6 months. Median time on HD was 170 and 198 days for females and males respectively (p=0.0059). Mortality increased with age and was higher in women and in public hospitals. The average per patient annual expenditure on HD was US$ 4,820. Costs of HD as a proportion of the total healthcare spend increased from 0.78% in 2008-09 to 5.15% in 2011-12. Progressive increase in uptake confirms a high unmet need for renal replacement therapy. High mortality and dropouts suggest the contribution of factors beyond user fees to outcomes. Insurance coverage does not address all inequities in access and the barriers to maintaining long term dialysis care.