ObjectiveTo estimate the prevalence of wounds managed by the UK's National Health Service (NHS) in 2012/2013 and the annual levels of healthcare resource use attributable to their management and corresponding costs.MethodsThis was a retrospective cohort analysis of the records of patients in The Health Improvement Network (THIN) Database. Records of 1000 adult patients who had a wound in 2012/2013 (cases) were randomly selected and matched with 1000 patients with no history of a wound (controls). Patients’ characteristics, wound-related health outcomes and all healthcare resource use were quantified and the total NHS cost of patient management was estimated at 2013/2014 prices.ResultsPatients’ mean age was 69.0 years and 45% were male. 76% of patients presented with a new wound in the study year and 61% of wounds healed during the study year. Nutritional deficiency (OR 0.53; p<0.001) and diabetes (OR 0.65; p<0.001) were independent risk factors for non-healing. There were an estimated 2.2 million wounds managed by the NHS in 2012/2013. Annual levels of resource use attributable to managing these wounds and associated comorbidities included 18.6 million practice nurse visits, 10.9 million community nurse visits, 7.7 million GP visits and 3.4 million hospital outpatient visits. The annual NHS cost of managing these wounds and associated comorbidities was £5.3 billion. This was reduced to between £5.1 and £4.5 billion after adjusting for comorbidities.ConclusionsReal world evidence highlights wound management is predominantly a nurse-led discipline. Approximately 30% of wounds lacked a differential diagnosis, indicative of practical difficulties experienced by non-specialist clinicians. Wounds impose a substantial health economic burden on the UK's NHS, comparable to that of managing obesity (£5.0 billion). Clinical and economic benefits could accrue from improved systems of care and an increased awareness of the impact that wounds impose on patients and the NHS.

Bradford Scholars -how to deposit your paper Overview Copyright check• Check if your publisher allows submission to a repository.• Use the Sherpa RoMEO database if you are not sure about your publisher's position or email openaccess@bradford.ac.uk.

ObjectiveOur aim was to estimate the prevalence-based cost of illness imposed by nocturia (≥2 nocturnal voids per night) in Germany, Sweden, and the UK in an average year.MethodsInformation obtained from a systematic review of published literature and clinicians was used to construct an algorithm depicting the management of nocturia in these three countries. This enabled an estimation of (1) annual levels of healthcare resource use, (2) annual cost of healthcare resource use, and (3) annual societal cost arising from presenteeism and absenteeism attributable to nocturia in each country.ResultsIn an average year, there are an estimated 12.5, 1.2, and 8.6 million patients ≥20 years of age with nocturia in Germany, Sweden, and the UK, respectively. In an average year in each country, respectively, these patients were estimated to have 13.8, 1.4, and 10.0 million visits to a family practitioner or specialist, ~91,000, 9000, and 63,000 hospital admissions attributable to nocturia and 216,000, 19,000, and 130,000 subjects were estimated to incur a fracture resulting from nocturia. The annual direct cost of healthcare resource use attributable to managing nocturia was estimated to be approximately €2.32 billion in Germany, 5.11 billion kr (€0.54 billion) in Sweden, and £1.35 billion (€1.77 billion) in the UK. The annual indirect societal cost arising from both presenteeism and absenteeism was estimated to be approximately €20.76 billion in Germany and 19.65 billion kr (€2.10 billion) in Sweden. In addition, in the UK, the annual indirect cost due to absenteeism was an estimated £4.32 billion (€5.64 billion).ConclusionsNocturia appears to impose a substantial socioeconomic burden in all three countries. Clinical and economic benefits could accrue from an increased awareness of the impact that nocturia imposes on patients, health services, and society as a whole.

This analysis provides the best estimate available of NHS resource use and costs with which to inform policy and budgetary decisions pertaining to this rare disease.

Within the study's limitations, the use of adjunctive SIS instead of standard care alone improves outcome for less cost and thereby affords a cost-effective use of Medicare-funded resources in the management of neuropathic foot ulcers among adult patients with type 1 or 2 diabetes mellitus in the US.

Sung (2020) The cost-effectiveness of isavuconazole compared to the standard of care in the treatment of patients with invasive fungal infection prior to differential pathogen diagnosis in the United Kingdom,

ObjectiveTo estimate the cost-effectiveness of using an extensively hydrolyzed casein formula containing the probiotic Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG (eHCF + LGG; Nutramigen LGG) as a first-line management for cow’s milk allergy compared with eHCF alone, and amino acid formulae in Spain, from the perspective of the Spanish National Health Service (SNS).MethodsDecision modeling was used to estimate the probability of immunoglobulin E (IgE)-mediated and non–IgE-mediated allergic infants developing tolerance to cow’s milk by 18 months. The models also estimated the SNS cost (at 2012/2013 prices) of managing infants over 18 months after starting a formula as well as the relative cost-effectiveness of each of the formulae.ResultsThe probability of developing tolerance to cow’s milk by 18 months was higher among infants with either IgE-mediated or non–IgE-mediated allergy who were fed eHCF + LGG compared with those fed one of the other formulae. The total health care cost of initially feeding infants with eHCF + LGG was less than that of feeding infants with one of the other formulae. Hence, eHCF + LGG affords the greatest value for money to the SNS for managing both IgE-mediated and non–IgE-mediated cow’s milk allergy.ConclusionUsing eHCF + LGG instead of eHCF alone or amino acid formulae for first-line management of newly-diagnosed infants with cow’s milk allergy affords a cost-effective use of publicly funded resources because it improves outcome for less cost. A randomized controlled study showing faster tolerance development in children receiving a probiotic-containing formula is required before this conclusion can be confirmed.

ObjectiveTo estimate the cost-effectiveness of using an extensively hydrolyzed casein formula (eHCF) containing the probiotic Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG (eHCF + LGG; Nutramigen LGG) as an initial treatment for cow’s milk allergy compared with eHCF alone and amino acid formulas (AAF) in Poland from the perspective of the Polish National Health Fund (Narodowy Fundusz Zdrowia [NFZ]) and parents.MethodsDecision modeling was used to estimate the probability of cow’s milk allergic infants developing tolerance to cow’s milk by 18 months. The model also estimated the cost to the NFZ and parents (Polish Zloty [PLN] at 2013–2014 prices) for managing infants over 18 months after starting one of the formulas as well as the relative cost-effectiveness of each of the formulas.ResultsThe probability of developing tolerance to cow’s milk by 18 months was higher among infants who were fed eHCF + LGG (0.82) compared with those fed eHCF alone (0.53) or an AAF (0.22). An infant who is initially managed with eHCF + LGG is expected to consume fewer health care resources than infants managed with the other formulas. Hence, the estimated total health care cost incurred by the NFZ for initially feeding infants with eHCF + LGG (PLN 5,693) was less than that of feeding infants with eHCF alone (PLN 7,749) or an AAF (PLN 24,333). However, the total cost incurred by parents for initially feeding infants with an AAF (PLN 815) was marginally less than that of feeding with eHCF + LGG (PLN 993), which was less than that of feeding with eHCF alone (PLN 1,226).ConclusionUsing eHCF + LGG instead of eHCF alone or an AAF for first-line management of newly diagnosed infants with cow’s milk allergy affords a cost-effective use of NFZ-funded resources, since it improves outcome for less cost. Whether eHCF + LGG would be viewed as being cost-effective by parents is dependent on their willingness to pay an additional cost for additional tolerance acquisition to cow’s milk.