Standard-of-care treatment for haemophilia A or B is to maintain adequate coagulation factor levels through clotting factor administration. The current study aimed to evaluate annualised bleeding rates (ABR) and treatment adherence for haemophilia A or B patients receiving standard half-life (SHL) vs. extended half-life (EHL) factor replacement products. We analysed data from the Adelphi Disease-Specific Programmes, a health record–based survey of United States and European haematologists. Analysis included 651 males with moderate-to-severe haemophilia A or B (the United States, n = 132; Europe, n = 519). The haemophilia A analysis included 501 patients (SHL, n = 435; EHL, n = 66). In the combined United States/European population, mean (SD) ABR was 1.7 (1.69) for the SHL group and 1.8 (2.00) for the EHL group. A total of 72% of patients receiving SHL factor VIII and 75% of patients receiving EHL factor VIII in the combined population were fully adherent (no doses missed of the last 10 doses), as reported by physicians. The haemophilia B analysis included 150 patients (SHL, n = 114; EHL, n = 36). The mean (SD) ABR in the combined population was 2.1 (2.16) for patients receiving SHL factor IX (FIX) and 1.4 (1.48) for patients receiving EHL FIX. The percentage of fully adherent patients (physician-reported) was similar in both treatment groups (SHL FIX, 68%; EHL FIX, 73%). In this preliminary real-world survey in a relatively small sample of patients, measures of ABR and adherence between SHL and EHL products were evaluated. Additional real-world research on prescribing patterns, SHL vs. EHL effectiveness, and adherence is warranted.

BackgroundBone metastases (BMs) are common in patients with breast cancer and can lead to skeletal-related events (SREs), which are associated with increased pain and reduced quality of life (QoL). Bone-targeted agents (BTAs), like zoledronic acid and denosumab, reduce the incidence of SREs and delay progression of bone pain.Materials and methodsWe evaluated the management of BMs and pain in six European countries (Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and UK) using the Adelphi Breast Cancer Disease Specific Programme, which included a physician survey and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) to assess the impact of BMs on pain and QoL.Results301 physicians completed patient record forms for 2984 patients with advanced breast cancer; 1408 with BMs and 1136 with metastases at sites other than bone (non-BMs). Most patients with BMs (88%) received a BTA, with 81% receiving treatment during 3 months following BM diagnosis. For those who did not receive a BTA, the main reasons given were: very recent BM diagnosis, perceived low risk of bone complications, and short life expectancy. Most patients with BMs (68%) were experiencing bone pain and, of these, 97% were taking analgesics (including 28% receiving strong opioids). Despite this, moderate to severe pain was reported in 20% of patients who were experiencing pain. PROs were assessed in 766 patients with advanced breast cancer (392 with BMs, 374 with non-BMs). Overall, patients with BMs reported worse pain and QoL outcomes than those with non-BMs, those not receiving a BTA reported worse pain.ConclusionDespite the large proportion of patients receiving BTAs in this study, some patients with BMs are still not receiving early treatment to prevent SREs or to manage pain. Improving physicians’ understanding of the role of BTAs and the importance of early treatment following BM diagnosis has the potential to improve patient care.

PurposeNeuropathic pain (NP) is often severe and represents a major humanistic and economic burden. This study aimed at providing insight on this burden across France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the UK, considering direct and indirect costs, productivity loss, and humanistic impact on patients and their families.MethodsPhysician questionnaires provided data on patients presenting with NP covering demographics, sick leave and retirement, number of consultations, drug treatments, and surgical procedures. Patients provided further demographic and disease-related data and completed the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI), the EuroQol 5-Dimension (EQ-5D), and the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) questionnaires. All health-related direct unitary costs were collected from relevant country-specific sources and adjusted to 2012 prices (€) where necessary. A subgroup analysis of costs based on diabetic peripheral neuropathy (n=894), fibromyalgia (n=300), and low back pain (n=963) was performed.FindingsAbout 413 physicians completed a total of 3,956 patient records forms. Total annual direct health-care costs per patient ranged from €1,939 (Italy) to €3,131 (Spain). Annual professional caregiver costs ranged from €393 (France) to €1,242 (UK), but this only represented a small proportion of total care because much care is provided by family or friends. Sick leave costs ranged from €5,492 (UK) to €7,098 (France), with 10%–32% patients prevented from working at some point by NP. Total cost (including direct and indirect costs) of NP per patient was €10,313 in France (69% of the total cost), €14,446 in Germany (78%), €9,305 in Italy (69%), €10,597 in Spain (67%), and €9,685 in the UK (57%). Indirect costs (ie, sick leave) constituted the majority of costs in all five countries: €7,098 in France, €11,232 in Germany, €6,382 in Italy, €7,066 in Spain, and €5,492 in the UK. In the subgroup analysis, total annual direct costs per patient were highest for neuropathic back pain and radiculopathy, and lowest for fibromyalgia. Mean WPAI score range was 34.4–56.1; BPI interference was 4.1–4.8; and EQ-5D was 0.57–0.74. The results suggest that a significant proportion of the patient’s work time in the previous week was affected by NP, and these are relatively high compared with other diseases such as diabetes, respiratory conditions, and arthritis.ImplicationsDespite differences in practice between countries, these findings suggest a high opportunity cost for society in terms of lost work and productivity due to NP. The wider costs appear significantly higher to patients, carers/families, and society as a whole than to the health system alone.

No abstract

No abstract