Cancer Rehabilitation Indicators for Europe

Little is known of cancer rehabilitation needs in Europe. EUROCHIP-3 organised a group of experts to propose a list of population-based indicators used for describing cancer rehabilitation across Europe. The aim of this study is to present and discuss these indicators. A EUROCHIP-3 expert panel reached agreement on two types of indicators. (a) Cancer prevalence indicators. These were proposed as a means of characterising the burden of cancer rehabilitation needs by time from diagnosis and patient health status. These indicators can be estimated from cancer registry data or by collecting data on follow-up and treatments for samples of cases archived in cancer registries. (b) Indicators of rehabilitation success. These include: return to work, quality of life, and satisfaction of specific rehabilitation needs. Studies can be performed to estimate these indicators in individual countries, but to obtain comparable data across European countries it will be necessary to administer a questionnaire to randomly selected samples of patients from population-based cancer registry databases. However, three factors complicate questionnaire studies: patients may not be aware that they have cancer; incomplete participation in surveys could lead to bias; and national confidentiality laws in some cases prohibit cancer registries from approaching patients. Although these studies are expensive and difficult to perform, but as the number of cancer survivors increases, it is important to document their needs in order to provide information on cancer control.

Economic Evaluation of Ticagrelor for Secondary Prevention Following Acute Coronary Syndromes

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: To estimate the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of ticagrelor in the treatment of patients with acute coronary syndromes (unstable angina or myocardial infarction with or without ST-segment elevation), including patients treated medically and those undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass grafting. METHODS: A short-term decision tree and a long-term Markov model were used to simulate the evolution of patients' life-cycles. Clinical effectiveness data were collected from the PLATO trial and resource use data were obtained from the Hospital de Santa Marta database, disease-related group legislation and the literature. RESULTS: Ticagrelor provides increases of 0.1276 life years and 0.1106 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) per patient. From a societal perspective these clinical gains entail an increase in expenditure of €610. Thus the incremental cost per life year saved is €4780 and the incremental cost per QALY is €5517. CONCLUSIONS: The simulation results show that ticagrelor reduces events compared to clopidogrel. The costs of ticagrelor are partially offset by lower costs arising from events prevented. The use of ticagrelor in clinical practice is therefore cost-effective compared to generic clopidogrel.