No abstract

Abstract

Abstract

BackgroundPrior clinical trials have suggested that home‐based Ig treatment in multifocal motor neuropathy (MMN) and chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy (CIDP) and its variant Lewis–Sumner syndrome (LSS) is safe and effective and is less costly than hospital‐administered intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg).MethodsA French prospective, dual‐center, cost minimization analysis was carried out to evaluate IVIg administration (5% concentrated) at home versus in hospital with regard to costs, patients’ autonomy, and patients’ quality of life. The primary endpoint was the overall cost of treatment, and we adopted the perspective of the payer (French Social Health Insurance).ResultsTwenty‐four patients aged 52.3 (12.2) years were analyzed: nine patients with MMN, eight with CIDP, and seven with LSS. IVIg (g/kg) dosage was 1.51 ± 0.43 in hospital and 1.52 ± 0.4 at home. Nine‐month total costs per patient extrapolated to 1 year of treatment were €48,189 ± 26,105 versus €91,798 ± 51,125 in the home and hospital groups, respectively (p < .0001). The most frequently reported factors for choosing home treatment were the good tolerance and absence of side effects of IVIg administration, as well as a good understanding of the advantages and drawbacks of home treatment (75% of respondents). The mRankin scores before and after switch to home treatment were 1.61 ± 0.72 and 1.36 ± 0.76, respectively (p = .027).DiscussionThe switch from hospital‐based to home‐based IVIg treatment for patients with immune neuropathy represents potentially significant savings in the management of the disease.

France is one of the European countries hardest hit by the Covid-19 pandemic. The pandemic brought into light structural weaknesses of the health system, including its governance and decision making process, but also provoked changes that helped to improve its resilience. We analyse the French experience of Covid-19 in 2020 by critically reviewing major policy measures implemented during the first two waves of the pandemic. France has struggled to find the right balance between the rock of https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms.

Aims The objective of this paper is to assess whether cardiac contractility modulation (via the Optimizer System) plus standard of care (SoC) is a cost-effective treatment for people with heart failure [New York Heart Association (NYHA) III, left ventricular ejection fraction of 25-45%, and narrow QRS] compared against SoC alone from the perspective of the English National Health Service. Methods and resultsWe developed a regression equation-based cost-effectiveness model, using individual patient data from three randomized control trials (FIX-HF-5 Phases 1 and 2, and FIX-HF-5C) to populate the majority of parameters. A series of regression equations predicted NYHA class over time, mortality, all-cause hospitalization rates, and health-related quality of life. We conducted the analysis in line with the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence reference case, modelling costs from an English National Health Service perspective, and considering outcomes in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) over a patient lifetime perspective. Our base case analysis produced an incremental cost per additional QALY of GBP22 988 (€25 750) when comparing Optimizer + SoC to SoC alone. This result was not sensitive to parameter uncertainty but was sensitive to the time horizon over which costs and QALYs were captured and the duration over which a survival benefit with Optimizer + SoC can be assumed to apply. Conclusions Cardiac contractility modulation is likely to be cost-effective in people with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, NYHA III, and narrow QRS, provided that the treatment benefit can be maintained beyond the duration of the existing clinical trial follow-up. This analysis supports the current recommendations of the European Society of Cardiology that this therapy may be considered for such patients.

Background: In patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel disease, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for non-culprit lesions guided by FFR is superior to treatment of the culprit lesion alone. Whether deferring non-culprit PCI is safe in this specific context is questionable. We aimed to assess clinical outcomes at one-year in STEMI patients with multivessel coronary artery disease and an FFR-guided strategy for non-culprit lesions, according to whether or not ≥1 PCI was performed. Methods: Outcomes were analyzed in patients of the randomized FLOWER MI (Flow Evaluation to Guide Revascularization in Multivessel ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction) trial in whom, after successful primary PCI, non-culprit lesions were assessed using FFR. The primary outcome was a composite of all-cause death, non-fatal MI, and unplanned hospitalization with urgent revascularization at one year. Results: Among 1,171 patients enrolled in this study, 586 were assigned to the FFR-guided group: 388 (66%) of them had ≥1 PCI and 198 (34%) had no PCI. Mean FFR before decision (i.e., PCI or not) of non-culprit lesions were 0.75±0.10 and 0.88±0.06, respectively. During follow-up, a primary outcome event occurred in 16 of 388 patients (4.1%) in patients with PCI and in 16 of 198 patients (8.1%) in patients without PCI (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.42; 95% confidence interval, 0.20 to 0.88; P = 0.02). Conclusions: In patients with STEMI undergoing complete revascularization guided by FFR measurement, those with ≥1 PCI had lower event rates at 1 year, compared with patients with deferred PCI, suggesting that deferring lesions judged relevant by visual estimation but with FFR >0.80 may not be optimal in this context. Future randomized studies are needed to confirm this data.

Background[18F]2-fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (18FDG-PET/CT) has high sensitivity for detecting recurrences of colorectal cancer (CRC). Our objective was to determine whether adding routine 6-monthly 18FDG-PET/CT to our usual monitoring strategy improved patient outcomes and to assess the effect on costs.Patients and methodsIn this open-label multicentre trial, patients in remission of CRC (stage II perforated, stage III, or stage IV) after curative surgery were randomly assigned (1 : 1) to usual monitoring alone (3-monthly physical and tumour marker assays, 6-monthly liver ultrasound and chest radiograph, and 6-monthly whole-body computed tomography) or with 6-monthly 18FDG-PET/CT, for 3 years. A multidisciplinary committee reviewed each patient’s data every 3 months and classified the recurrence status as yes/no/doubtful. Recurrences were treated with curative surgery alone if feasible and with chemotherapy otherwise. The primary end point was treatment failure defined as unresectable recurrence or death. Relative risks were estimated, and survival was analysed using the Kaplan–Meier method, log-rank test, and Cox models. Direct costs were compared.ResultsOf the 239 enrolled patients, 120 were in the intervention arm and 119 in the control arm. The failure rate was 29.2% (31 unresectable recurrences and 4 deaths) in the intervention group and 23.7% (27 unresectable recurrences and 1 death) in the control group (relative risk = 1.23; 95% confidence interval, 0.80–1.88; P = 0.34). The multivariate analysis also showed no significant difference (hazards ratio, 1.33; 95% confidence interval, 0.8–2.19; P = 0.27). Median time to diagnosis of unresectable recurrence (months) was significantly shorter in the intervention group [7 (3–20) versus 14.3 (7.3–27), P = 0.016]. Mean cost/patient was higher in the intervention group (18 192 ± 27 679 € versus 11 131 ± 13  €, P < 0.033).Conclusion 18FDG-PET/CT, when added every 6 months, increased costs without decreasing treatment failure rates in patients in remission of CRC. The control group had very close follow-up, and any additional improvement (if present) would be small and hard to detect.ClinicalTrials.gov identifierNCT00624260