Introduction/objectives The objective of this study is to describe the treatment patterns and use of healthcare resources in a cohort of Colombian patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treated with biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) or tofacitinib. Method This is a descriptive study from a retrospective cohort of patients diagnosed with RA who were treated with bDMARDs or tofacitinib after failure of conventional DMARDs (cDMARDs) or first bDMARD. Patients who were receiving pharmacological treatment between 01 January 2014 and 30 June 2018 were included. The analysis is through the revision of claim database and electronical medical records. Demographic and clinical data were collected. The costs of healthcare resources were estimated from the billing expense of healthcare service provider. Results We evaluated 588 RA patients on treatment with bDMARDs (n = 505) or tofacitinib (n = 83), most of them were in combination with cDMARDs (85.4%). The 88.1% were females and mean age was 57.3 ± 12.5 years. The median evolution of RA since diagnosis was 9 years (IQR:4–17.2). The mean duration of use during follow-up of the bDMARDs or tofacitinib was similar, with a mean of 9.8 ± 1.9 months. It was identified that 394 (67.0%) discontinued therapy. The average annual direct cost of care per patient was USD 8997 ± 2172, where 97.2% was due to drug costs. The average annual cost of treatment per patient with bDMARDs was USD 8604 and tofacitinib was USD 6377. Conclusions In the face of a first failure of cDMARD, bDMARDs are frequently added. A high frequency of patients do not persist treatment during the first year of follow-up. The pharmacological treatment is the most representative cause of healthcare costs. Key Points• Rheumatoid arthritis is a disease with a high burden of comorbidities, complications, and worse health-related quality of life and is associated with elevated healthcare costs.• The biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs or tofacitinib medications are indicated for those with significant progression of the disease and when there is a need for alternatives to achieve low levels of activity and remission.• Patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs or tofacitinib represent a significant economic burden to the health system, especially in the costs derived from pharmacological treatment.

No abstract

Objectives To assess budget impact of the implementation of an anticoagulation clinic (AC) compared to usual care (UC), in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). Method A decision tree was designed to analyze the cost and events rates over a 1-year horizon. The patients were distributed according to treatment, 30% Direct Oral Anticoagulant (DOAC) regimens and the rest to warfarin. The thromboembolism and bleeding were derived from observational studies which demonstrated that ACs had important impact in reducing the frequency of these events compared with UC, due to higher adherence with DOACs and proportion of time in therapeutic range (TTR) with warfarin. Costs were derived from the transactional platform of Colombian government, healthcare authority reimbursement and published studies. The values were expressed in American dollars (USD). The exchanged rate used was COP $3.693 per dollar. Results During 1 year of follow-up, in a cohort of 228 patients there were estimated 48 bleedings, 6 thromboembolisms in AC group versus 84 bleedings, and 12 thromboembolisms events in patients receiving UC. Total costs related to AC were $126 522 compared with $141 514 in UC. The AC had an important reduction in the cost of clinical events versus UC ($52 085 vs $110 749) despite a higher cost of care facilities ($74 436 vs $30 765). A sensibility analysis suggested that in the 83% of estimations, the AC produced savings varied between $27 078 and $135 391. Conclusions This study demonstrated that AC compared with UC, produced an important savings in the oral anticoagulation therapy for patients with NVAF.

No abstract

No abstract

encounters. Index date was defined as the first date of melanoma diagnosis within the study period. EHR history was assessed for 6 months prior to index and 1 year post index. All pathology, radiology and treatment encounters were identified, and all specialties who participated in the patient's oncology diagnosis and care were counted. All ICD codes were verified by certified medical professional. Results: A total 7351 patients had one or more melanoma related encounters in 2017. During the 6 months prior to diagnosis, histological tests were ordered mostly by dermatologists (38%), followed by pathologists (19%), while oncologists and surgeons ordered 6% and 5%, respectively. Analysis of surgical excision on or after index indicated that dermatologists performed 47% of procedures followed by plastic surgeons (10%) and oncologists (9%). Oncologists comprised 44% of chemotherapy prescribing, while general medicine accounted for 14%. Conclusions: A large proportion of dermatological cancer care encounters occur outside the oncology setting. Therefore, to understand the factors that affect treatment outcomes, the EHR data used for outcomes research should include the entire care continuum.

No abstract

No abstract