4.3 Article

The economics of inpatient on-demand treatment for haemophilia with high-responding inhibitors: a US retrospective data analysis

期刊

HAEMOPHILIA
卷 18, 期 2, 页码 284-290

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2516.2011.02623.x

关键词

haemophilia; inhibitors; inpatient; on-demand

资金

  1. Novo Nordisk, A/S

向作者/读者索取更多资源

. Inpatient costs comprise >50% of annual healthcare costs for haemophilia patients with inhibitors but no reports exist on inpatient resource use and costs at a US national level. To quantify inpatient resource use and costs for on-demand treatment of bleeds of US haemophilia patients with inhibitors and compare costs and treatment duration between Factor VIII bypassing agents (BAs). Stays with haemophilia A from 20032008 were identified from inpatient billing records. Presence of inhibitors was inferred through use of BA; recombinant activated Factor VII and plasma-derived activated prothrombin complex concentrate. Duration and number of infusions of BA, length of stay, use of opioid-containing analgesics and costs were assessed and compared. Among 1322 stays mean BA treatment duration was 4.6 days with 4.9 infusions, 6.1 nights spent in hospital, and 58% administered opioid-containing analgesics. In unadjusted analyses there were significant differences in the above mentioned outcomes by BA use, reflecting underlying differences between the two patient populations. Average inpatient costs were $82 911. In adjusted analyses, African-American race, greater disease severity, hospital region outside the southern US and older age (cost model only) were significant predictors of longer BA treatment duration and higher costs. The economic burden of inpatient on-demand treatment of haemophilia with inhibitors is substantial and is associated with lengthy stays, high costs and inadequate pain relief. Availability of more effective BAs could reduce the need for re-treatment, reducing treatment costs and other medical costs, while improving health related quality of life.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据