Cost-effectiveness of natriuretic peptide-based screening and collaborative care: a report from the STOP-HF (St Vincent's Screening TO Prevent Heart Failure) study

AIMS: Prevention of cardiovascular disease and heart failure (HF) in a cost-effective manner is a public health goal. This work aims to assess the cost-effectiveness of the St Vincent's Screening TO Prevent Heart Failure (STOP-HF) intervention.

METHODS AND RESULTS: This is a substudy of 1054 participants with cardiovascular risk factors [median age 65.8 years, interquartile range (IQR) 57.8:72.4, with 4.3 years, IQR 3.4:5.2, follow-up]. Annual natriuretic peptide-based screening was performed, with collaborative cardiovascular care between specialist physicians and general practitioners provided to patients with BNP levels >50 pg/mL. Analysis of cost per case prevented and cost-effectiveness per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained was performed. The primary clinical endpoint of LV dysfunction (LVD) with or without HF was reduced in intervention patients [odds ratio (OR) 0.60; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.38-0.94; P = 0.026]. There were 157 deaths and/or emergency hospitalizations for major adverse cardiac events (MACE) in the control group vs. 102 in the intervention group (OR 0.68; 95% CI 0.49-0.93; P = 0.01). The cost per case of LVD/HF prevented was €9683 (sensitivity range -€843 to €20 210), whereas the cost per MACE prevented was €3471 (sensitivity range -€302 to €7245). Cardiovascular hospitalization savings offset increased outpatient and primary care costs. The cost per QALY gain was €1104 and the intervention has an 88% probability of being cost-effective at a willingness to pay threshold of €30 000.

CONCLUSION: Among patients with cardiovascular risk factors, natriuretic peptide-based screening and collaborative care reduced LVD, HF, and MACE, and has a high probability of being cost-effective.

TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT00921960.

Protocol: Quality of Life, Decision Making, Costs and Impact on Carers in People Managed without Dialysis - The PACKS Study

Predictors of caregiver burden across the home-based palliative care trajectory in Ontario, Canada

Family caregivers of patients enrolled in home-based palliative care programmes provide unpaid care and assistance with daily activities to terminally ill family members. Caregivers often experience caregiver burden, which is an important predictor of anxiety and depression that can extend into bereavement. We conducted a longitudinal, prospective cohort study to comprehensively assess modifiable and non-modifiable patient and caregiver factors that account for caregiver burden over the palliative care trajectory. Caregivers (n = 327) of patients with malignant neoplasm were recruited from two dedicated home-based palliative care programmes in Southern Ontario, Canada from 1 July 2010 to 31 August 2012. Data were obtained from bi-weekly telephone interviews with caregivers from study admission until death, and from palliative care programme and home-care agency databases. Information collected comprised patient and caregiver demographics, utilisation of privately and publicly financed resources, patient clinical status and caregiver burden. The average age of the caregivers was 59.0 years (SD: 13.2), and almost 70% were female. Caregiver burden increased over time in a non-linear fashion from study admission to patient death. Increased monthly unpaid care-giving time costs, monthly public personal support worker costs, emergency department visits and low patient functional status were associated with higher caregiver burden. Greater use of hospice care was associated with lower burden. Female caregivers tended to report more burden compared to men as death approached, and burden was higher when patients were male. Low patient functional status was the strongest predictor of burden. Understanding the influence of modifiable and non-modifiable factors on the experience of burden over the palliative trajectory is essential for the development and targeting of programmes and policies to support family caregivers and reduce burden. Supporting caregivers can have benefits such as improved caregiver health outcomes, and enhancing their ability to meet care-giving demands, thereby potentially allowing for longer patient care in the home setting.

Renal palliative care – where to after the PACKS study?

The PAlliative Care in chronic Kidney diSease study (PACKS study) is examining quality of life, decision making and decisional conflict, costs and mortality in patients with advanced chronic kidney disease who have opted for palliative care. It is also exploring the impact of the decision on the quality of life of carers. The study includes adult patients with end stage (stage 5) chronic kidney disease who have opted for palliative care, adult carers of these patients and renal physicians/clinical nurse specialists who have experience of treating patients with end stage chronic kidney disease who have opted for palliative care.
Early initial findings relate to clinician perspectives on patient decisional conflict, in making complex decisions between dialysis and conservative management. Interviews were conducted with nephrologists and clinical nurse specialists across 10 renal centres in the UK. Themes with associated subthemes include “Frequent changing of mind regarding treatment options,” “A paternalistic approach to decision-making and “Intricacy of the decision”. These findings will be presented and recommendations for future research and education made. Clinicians need to take a more patient centered approach to decision-making. Interventions aimed at increasing understanding of renal disease and its treatments may reduce decisional conflict and raise decisional quality but require testing in the renal specialty.

The epidemiology, healthcare and societal burden and costs of asthma in the UK and its member nations: analyses of standalone and linked national databases

Background: There are a lack of reliable data on the epidemiology and associated burden and costs of asthma. We sought to provide the first UK-wide estimates of the epidemiology, healthcare utilisation and costs of asthma. 

Methods: We obtained and analysed asthma-relevant data from 27 datasets: these comprised national health surveys for 2010-11, and routine administrative, health and social care datasets for 2011-12; 2011-12 costs were estimated in pounds sterling using economic modelling. 

Results: The prevalence of asthma depended on the definition and data source used. The UK lifetime prevalence of patient-reported symptoms suggestive of asthma was 29.5 % (95 % CI, 27.7-31.3; n = 18.5 million (m) people) and 15.6 % (14.3-16.9, n = 9.8 m) for patient-reported clinician-diagnosed asthma. The annual prevalence of patient-reported clinician-diagnosed-and-treated asthma was 9.6 % (8.9-10.3, n = 6.0 m) and of clinician-reported, diagnosed-and-treated asthma 5.7 % (5.7-5.7; n = 3.6 m). Asthma resulted in at least 6.3 m primary care consultations, 93,000 hospital in-patient episodes, 1800 intensive-care unit episodes and 36,800 disability living allowance claims. The costs of asthma were estimated at least £1.1 billion: 74 % of these costs were for provision of primary care services (60 % prescribing, 14 % consultations), 13 % for disability claims, and 12 % for hospital care. There were 1160 asthma deaths. 

Conclusions: Asthma is very common and is responsible for considerable morbidity, healthcare utilisation and financial costs to the UK public sector. Greater policy focus on primary care provision is needed to reduce the risk of asthma exacerbations, hospitalisations and deaths, and reduce costs.

Shooting for the Moon or Flying Too Near the Sun? Crossing the Value Rubicon in Precision Cancer Care

In his last two State of the Union addresses, President Barack Obama has focused on the need to deliver innovative solutions to improve human health, through the Precision Medicine Initiative in 2015 and the recently announced Cancer Moonshot in 2016. Precision cancer care has delivered clear patient benefit, but even for high-impact medicines such as imatinib mesylate (Glivec) in chronic myeloid leukaemia, the excitement at the success of this practice-changing clinical intervention has been somewhat tempered by the escalating price of this 'poster child' for precision cancer medicine (PCM). Recent studies on the costs of cancer drugs have revealed significant price differentials, which are a major causative factor behind disparities in the access to new generations of immunological and molecularly targeted agents. In this perspective, we will discuss the benefits of PCM to modern cancer control, but also emphasise how increasing costs are rendering the current approaches to integrating the paradigm of PCM unsustainable. Despite the ever increasing pressure on cancer and health care budgets, innovation will and must continue. Value-based frameworks offer one of the most rational approaches for policymakers committed to improving cancer outcomes through a public health approach.

Time-limited home-care reablement services for maintaining and improving the functional independence of older adults

Background: Reablement, also known as restorative care, is one possible approach to home-care services for older adults at risk of functional decline. Unlike traditional home-care services, reablement is frequently time-limited (usually six to 12 weeks) and aims to maximise independence by offering an intensive multidisciplinary, person-centred and goal-directed intervention. Objectives:Objectives To assess the effects of time-limited home-care reablement services (up to 12 weeks) for maintaining and improving the functional independence of older adults (aged 65 years or more) when compared to usual home-care or wait-list control group. Search methods:We searched the following databases with no language restrictions during April to June 2015: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); MEDLINE (OvidSP); Embase (OvidSP); PsycINFO (OvidSP); ERIC; Sociological Abstracts; ProQuest Dissertations and Theses; CINAHL (EBSCOhost); SIGLE (OpenGrey); AgeLine and Social Care Online. We also searched the reference lists of relevant studies and reviews as well as contacting authors in the field.Selection criteria:We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster randomised or quasi-randomised trials of time-limited reablement services for older adults (aged 65 years or more) delivered in their home; and incorporated a usual home-care or wait-list control group. Data collection and analysis:Two authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data, assessed the risk of bias of individual studies and considered quality of the evidence using GRADE. We contacted study authors for additional information where needed.Main results:Two studies, comparing reablement with usual home-care services with 811 participants, met our eligibility criteria for inclusion; we also identified three potentially eligible studies, but findings were not yet available. One included study was conducted in Western Australia with 750 participants (mean age 82.29 years). The second study was conducted in Norway (61 participants; mean age 79 years). We are very uncertain as to the effects of reablement compared with usual care as the evidence was of very low quality for all of the outcomes reported. The main findings were as follows. Functional status: very low quality evidence suggested that reablement may be slightly more effective than usual care in improving function at nine to 12 months (lower scores reflect greater independence; standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.30; 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.53 to -0.06; 2 studies with 249 participants). Adverse events: reablement may make little or no difference to mortality at 12 months’ follow-up (RR 0.97; 95% CI 0.74 to 1.29; 2 studies with 811 participants) or rates of unplanned hospital admission at 24 months (RR 0.94; 95% CI 0.85 to 1.03; 1 study with 750 participants). The very low quality evidence also means we are uncertain whether reablement may influence quality of life (SMD -0.23; 95% CI -0.48 to 0.02; 2 trials with 249 participants) or living arrangements (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.34; 1 study with 750 participants) at time points up to 12 months. People receiving reablement may be slightly less likely to have been approved for a higher level of personal care than people receiving usual care over the 24 months’ follow-up (RR 0.87; 95% CI 0.77 to 0.98; 1 trial, 750 participants). Similarly, although there may be a small reduction in total aggregated home and healthcare costs over the 24-month follow-up (reablement: AUD 19,888; usual care: AUD 22,757; 1 trial with 750 participants), we are uncertain about the size and importance of these effects as the results were based on very low quality evidence. Neither study reported user satisfaction with the serviceAuthors’ conclusions:There is considerable uncertainty regarding the effects of reablement as the evidence was of very low quality according to our GRADE ratings. Therefore, the effectiveness of reablement services cannot be supported or refuted until more robust evidence becomes available. There is an urgent need for high quality trials across different health and social care systems due to the increasingly high profile of reablement services in policy and practice in several countries.