BackgroundInhaled drug delivery is the cornerstone treatment for asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). However, use of inhaler devices can be challenging, potentially leading to critical errors in handling that can significantly reduce drug delivery to the lungs and effectiveness of treatment.MethodsA systematic review was conducted to define ‘critical’ errors and their impact on health outcomes and resource use between 2004 and 2016, using key search terms for inhaler errors in asthma and COPD (Search-1) and associated health-economic and patient burden (Search-2).ResultsSearch-1 identified 62 manuscripts, 47 abstracts, and 5 conference proceedings (n = 114 total). Search-2 identified 9 studies. We observed 299 descriptions of critical error. Age, education status, previous inhaler instruction, comorbidities and socioeconomic status were associated with worse handling error frequency. A significant association was found between inhaler errors and poor disease outcomes (exacerbations), and greater health-economic burden.ConclusionsWe have shown wide variations in how critical errors are defined, and the evidence shows an important association between inhaler errors and worsened health outcomes. Given the negative impact diminished disease outcomes impose on resource use, our findings highlight the importance of achieving optimal inhaler technique, and a need for a consensus on defining critical and non-critical errors.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12931-017-0710-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

IntroductionInflammatory autoimmune diseases (rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, psoriasis, and psoriatic arthritis) have a considerable impact on patients’ quality of life and healthcare budgets. Biosimilar infliximab (Remsima®) has been authorized by the European Medicines Agency for the management of inflammatory autoimmune diseases based on a data package demonstrating efficacy, safety, and quality comparable to the reference infliximab product (Remicade®). This analysis aims to estimate the 1-year budget impact of the introduction of Remsima in five European countries.MethodsA budget impact model for the introduction of Remsima in Germany, the UK, Italy, the Netherlands, and Belgium was developed over a 1-year time horizon. Infliximab-naïve and switch patient groups were considered. Only direct drug costs were included. The model used the drug-acquisition cost of Remicade. The list price of Remsima was not known at the time of the analysis, and was assumed to be 10–30% less than that of Remicade. Key variables were tested in the sensitivity analysis.ResultsThe annual cost savings resulting from the introduction of Remsima were projected to range from €2.89 million (Belgium, 10% discount) to €33.80 million (Germany, 30% discount). If any such savings made were used to treat additional patients with Remsima, 250 (Belgium, 10% discount) to 2602 (Germany, 30% discount) additional patients could be treated. The cumulative cost savings across the five included countries and the six licensed disease areas were projected to range from €25.79 million (10% discount) to €77.37 million (30% discount). Sensitivity analyses showed the number of patients treated with infliximab to be directly correlated with projected cost savings, with disease prevalence and patient weight having a smaller impact, and incidence the least impact.ConclusionThe introduction of Remsima could lead to considerable drug cost-related savings across the six licensed disease areas in the five European countries.FundingMundipharma International Ltd.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s12325-015-0233-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Robyn Fivush is the Samuel Candler Dobbs Professor of Psychology at Emory University, Associated Faculty with the Department of Women's Studies, and a Senior Fellow in the Center for the Study of Law and Religion. Her research focuses on the social construction of autobiographical memory and the relations among memory, narrative, identity, trauma, and coping.Jennifer P. Lilgendahl Haverford College jlilgend@haverford.edu Jennifer Pals Lilgendahl is an associate professor of psychology at Haverford College. Her research examines processes of self-definition and identity construction in adolescence and adulthood, with a specific focus on how people connect memories of past events to the present self through the narration of a life story.

Our evaluation suggests that the distribution of take-home naloxone decreased overdose deaths by around 6.6% and was cost-effective with an incremental cost per QALY gained well below a £20,000 willingness-to-pay threshold set by UK decision-makers. The model code has been made available to aid future research. Further study is warranted on the impact of different formulations of naloxone on cost-effectiveness and the impact take-home naloxone has on the wider society.

In the base case, direct treatment costs were slightly higher for patients treated with OXN than for those treated with OXY. However, patients treated with OXN experienced a quality of life gain, and had an ICER considerably below thresholds commonly applied in the UK. The model was most sensitive to the estimated cost of constipation with a number of realistic scenarios in the sensitivity analysis demonstrating a cost saving with OXN (OXN dominant). OXN is therefore estimated to be a cost-effective option for treating patients with severe non-malignant pain and OIC.

No abstract

Given payer expectations, pharmaceutical companies should continue to take a role in ensuring that they have sufficient capacity to support payers in the design and implementation of innovative pricing agreements.

BackgroundOpioid abuse, including abuse of prescription opioids (“RxOs”) and illicit substances like heroin, is a serious public health issue in Europe. Currently, there is limited data on the magnitude of RxO abuse in Europe, despite increasing public and scientific interest in the issue. The purpose of this study was to use the best-available data to derive comparable estimates of the health care burden of RxO abuse in France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the United Kingdom (EU5).MethodsPublished data on the prevalence of problem opioid use and the share of opioid abuse patients reporting misuse of non-heroin opioids were used to estimate the prevalence of RxO abuse in the EU5 countries. The costs of RxO abuse were calculated by applying published estimates of the incremental health care costs of opioid abuse to country-specific estimates of the costs of chronic pain conditions. These estimates were input into an economic model that quantified the health care burden of RxO abuse in each of the EU5 countries. Sensitivity analyses examined key assumptions.ResultsBased on best-available current data, prevalence estimates of RxO abuse ranged from 0.7 to 13.7 per 10,000 individuals across the EU5 countries. Estimates of the incremental health care costs of RxO abuse ranged from €900 to €2,551 per patient per year. The annual health care cost burden of RxO abuse ranged from €6,264 to €279,927 per 100,000 individuals across the EU5 countries.ConclusionThis study suggests that RxO abuse imposes a cost burden on health systems in the five largest European countries. The extent of RxO abuse in Europe should be monitored given the potential for change over time. Continued efforts should be made to collect reliable data on the prevalence and costs of RxO abuse in Europe to facilitate an accurate characterization of the extent of this potentially growing problem.