Recommendations for Economic Evaluations of Non‐pharmacological Arthritis Care: Results from the CARE VI Meeting 2010

Bremander, Ann; Vlieland, Thea Vliet

doi:10.1002/msc.204

Cited by 4 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Next to the health burden, OA represents a significant economic burden on individuals, health care systems, and society, with costs accounting for 1–2.5% of the gross domestic product in Western countries . Because OA leads to considerable costs, it is important that clinical evaluations of OA interventions are accompanied by economic evaluations in order to inform decision makers about the efficiency of health care resources and to guide health care policy and decision processes .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Cost‐Utility and Cost‐Effectiveness Analyses of Face‐to‐Face Versus Telephone‐Based Nonpharmacologic Multidisciplinary Treatments for Patients With Generalized Osteoarthritis

Cuperus

Hout

Hoogeboom

et al. 2016

Arthritis Care & Research

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective. To evaluate, from a societal perspective, the cost utility and cost effectiveness of a nonpharmacologic faceto-face treatment program compared with a telephone-based treatment program for patients with generalized osteoarthritis (GOA).Methods. An economic evaluation was carried out alongside a randomized clinical trial involving 147 patients with GOA. Program costs were estimated from time registrations. One-year medical and nonmedical costs were estimated using cost questionnaires. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were estimated using the EuroQol (EQ) classification system, EQ rating scale, and the Short Form 6D (SF-6D). Daily function was measured using the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) disability index (DI). Cost and QALY/effect differences were analyzed using multilevel regression analysis and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. Results. Medical costs of the face-to-face treatment and telephone-based treatment were estimated at e387 and e252, respectively. The difference in total societal costs was nonsignificantly in favor of the face-to-face program (difference e708; 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 2e5,058, e3,642). QALYs were similar for both groups according to the EQ, but were significantly in favor of the face-to-face group, according to the SF-6D (difference 0.022 [95% CI 0.000, 0.045]). Daily function was similar according to the HAQ DI. Since both societal costs and QALYs/effects were in favor of the faceto-face program, the economic assessment favored this program, regardless of society's willingness to pay. There was a 65-90% chance that the face-to-face program had better cost utility and a 60-70% chance of being cost effective. Conclusion. This economic evaluation from a societal perspective showed that a nonpharmacologic, face-to-face treatment program for patients with GOA was likely to be cost effective, relative to a telephone-based program.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Based on the available studies, the authors suggested that exercise programs appear to be the best value for the money in the management of patients with hip and knee OA. Yet, high‐quality economic evaluations alongside clinical studies are needed .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cost‐Utility and Cost‐Effectiveness Analyses of Face‐to‐Face Versus Telephone‐Based Nonpharmacologic Multidisciplinary Treatments for Patients With Generalized Osteoarthritis

Cuperus

Hout

Hoogeboom

et al. 2016

Arthritis Care & Research

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Variability in the frequency of rheumatology consultations in patients with rheumatoid arthritis in Spain

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this work was to assess the variability in the use of health-care resources, based on the number of visits to rheumatology departments by rheumatoid arthritis patients, in Spain, and its association with patient, physician and center characteristics. The sample consisted of patient records of men and women (aged 16 or older), with a clinical diagnosis of RA, who met the American Rheumatism Association 1987 revised criteria and who had been treated in a rheumatology department at a Spanish hospital with at least one visit to a rheumatologist during the two years preceding the date of the study. To analyze which variables were independently associated with the number of consultations, those with a statistically significant result in the bivariate analysis, or which were clinically relevant or deemed confounders, were used in the construction of a linear regression model. The records of 1188 RA patients were studied. The linear regression model explained the 26.67 % of the variability in the number of visits. The number of csDMARDs prescribed, the administration of biological therapy, corticoid prescription, the presence of nursing consultation, mean time to first visit in the department and attended population showed a positive significant association, while the presence of telephone consultation, distance from the hospital to the patient´s residence (≥20 km) and drug monitoring by rheumatology department + primary care physician or by other specialists were negatively associated with the number of consultations. We observed a high variability in the number of visits, which remains partially unexplained even after taking into account individual, physician and center characteristics.

show abstract

Patients' preferences and health utility assessment with SF‐6D and EQ‐5D in patients with chronic hepatitis C treated with sofosbuvir regimens

Stepanova

Nader

Cure

et al. 2014

Aliment Pharmacol Ther

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary Background Health utilities measure patients' preferences for a health state. Aim To assess health utilities for sofosbuvir‐containing therapy for chronic hepatitis C. Methods The SF‐6D utility scores were derived from the SF‐36 instrument administered at baseline, during and post‐treatment to participants of the previously reported clinical trials of sofosbuvir. EQ‐5D utility scores were also approximated from the SF‐36 using a regression model. Results Nine hundred and ninety‐four patients were enrolled. Baseline SF‐6D and EQ‐5D scores were 0.66 ± 0.13 and 0.71 ± 0.22, respectively (the POSITRON trial), 0.71 ± 0.16 and 0.76 ± 0.23 (FISSION), 0.70 ± 0.14 and 0.75 ± 0.22 (FUSION), 0.72 ± 0.15 and 0.79 ± 0.22 (NEUTRINO). In all studies, SF‐6D and EQ‐5D scores were highly correlated with each other. (r = 0.83–0.87, P < 0.0001). After 12 weeks, patients receiving sofosbuvir + ribavirin (POSITRON) had similar utility scores to placebo (P > 0.05). Patients receiving 12 and 16 weeks of sofosbuvir + ribavirin (FUSION) had similar utility scores (P > 0.05). In FISSION, patients receiving sofosbuvir + ribavirin had significantly better utilities compared to patients receiving interferon + ribavirin (P < 0.001). Patients receiving sofosbuvir + ribavirin + interferon (NEUTRINO) had a decrease in utilities during treatment (SF‐6D: from 0.72 to 0.62, EQ‐5D: 0.79 to 0.65; P < 0.0001) similar to that observed in patients receiving pegylated interferon + ribavirin for 24 weeks in FISSION (0.72 to 0.62 and 0.77 to 0.65, respectively, P < 0.0001). After 12 weeks post‐treatment, patients with SVR (FUSION) had improvement in SF‐6D (+0.026 from baseline, P = 0.013) and EQ‐5D (+0.043, P = 0.013). In multivariate analyses, baseline depression, anxiety, fatigue, insomnia and treatment‐related anaemia were the most consistent predictors of utilities. Conclusions Patients' health utilities are minimally impacted by sofosbuvir + ribavirin treatment, as compared to interferon‐based, therapy regardless of treatment duration. Clinical trials' numbers: NCT01542788 (POSITRON), NCT01497366 (FISSION), NCT01604850 (FUSION), NCT01641640 (NEUTRINO).

show abstract

Recommendations for Economic Evaluations of Non‐pharmacological Arthritis Care: Results from the CARE VI Meeting 2010

Cited by 4 publications

References 17 publications

Cost‐Utility and Cost‐Effectiveness Analyses of Face‐to‐Face Versus Telephone‐Based Nonpharmacologic Multidisciplinary Treatments for Patients With Generalized Osteoarthritis

Cost‐Utility and Cost‐Effectiveness Analyses of Face‐to‐Face Versus Telephone‐Based Nonpharmacologic Multidisciplinary Treatments for Patients With Generalized Osteoarthritis

Variability in the frequency of rheumatology consultations in patients with rheumatoid arthritis in Spain

Patients' preferences and health utility assessment with SF‐6D and EQ‐5D in patients with chronic hepatitis C treated with sofosbuvir regimens

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About