Suchergebnisse

Background: Pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) is an important, evidence-based component for the management of individuals with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). In daily practice, the majority of COPD patients are treated in primary care. However, information about the availability of PR in primary care in Sweden is lacking. The aim was to investigate the availability of rehabilitation resources in primary care settings for patients with COPD in Sweden. Methods: A cross-sectional descriptive design was applied, using web-based questionnaires sent to all primary care centres in four regions, comprising more than half of the 9.6 million inhabitants of Sweden. The main questionnaire included questions about the content and availability of rehabilitation resources for COPD patients. PR was defined as exercise training and one or more of the following activities: education, nutritional intervention, energy conservation techniques or psychosocial support. Results: A total of 381 (55.9%) of the 682 primary care centres answered the main questionnaire. In addition to physicians and nurses, availability of healthcare professionals for rehabilitation in primary care settings was physiotherapists 92.0%, occupational therapists 91.9%, dieticians 83.9% and social workers or psychologists 98.4%. At 23.7% of all centres, PRwas not available toCOPD patients - neither in primary care nor at hospitals. Conclusion: Despite high availability of professionals for rehabilitation in primary care settings, about one-quarter of managers at primary care centres stated that their COPD patients had no access to PR. This indicates a need to structure resources for rehabilitation and to present and communicate the available resources within the healthcare system.

Background: Patients with severe uncontrolled asthma may receive oral corticosteroid (OCS) treatment regularly. The present study investigated the health care resource utilization and cost in regularly OCS treated Swedish asthma patients. Methods: Primary care medical records data were linked to data from Swedish national health registries. Patients >= 18 years with a drug claim for obstructive pulmonary diseases during 2007-2009 (index date) and a prior asthma diagnosis, were classified by their OCS claims during the 12-months' post index period: regular OCS equals >= 5 mg per day; periodic OCS less than 5 mg per day; or non-OCS users. Cost of asthma-and OCS-morbidity-related health care resource utilization were calculated. Results: A total of 15,437 asthma patients (mean age 47.8, female 62.6%), whereof 223 (1.44%) were regular OCS users, 3054 (19.7%) were periodic, and 12,160 (78.7%) were non-OCS users. Regular OCS users were older and more often females, had lower lung function, greater eosinophil count and more co-morbidities at baseline compared with the other groups. Age-adjusted annual total health care cost was three-times greater in the regular OCS group ((sic)5615) compared with the non-OCS users ((SIC) 1980) and twice as high as in the periodic OCS group ((sic) 2948). The major cost driver in the non-OCS and periodic OCS groups were primary care consultations, whereas inpatient costs were the major cost driver in the regular OCS group. The asthma related costs represented 10-12% of the total cost in all three groups. Conclusion: In this real-life asthma study in Sweden, the total yearly cost of health care resource utilization for a regular OCS user was three times greater than for a patient with no OCS use, indicating substantial economic and health care burden for asthma patients on regular oral steroid treatment.

Background: This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of indacaterol/glycopyrronium (IND/GLY) versus salmeterol/fluticasone (SFC) in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients with moderate to very severe airflow limitation and ≥1 exacerbation in the preceding year. Methods: A previously published and validated patient-level simulation model was adapted using clinical data from the FLAME trial and real-world cost data from the ARCTIC study. Costs (total monetary costs comprising drug, maintenance, exacerbation, and pneumonia costs) and health outcomes (life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs)) were projected over various time horizons (1, 5, 10 years, and lifetime) from the Swedish payer's perspective and were discounted at 3% annually. Uncertainty in model input values was studied through one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Subgroup analyses were also performed. Results: IND/GLY was associated with lower costs and better outcomes compared with SFC over all the analysed time horizons. Use of IND/GLY resulted in additional 0.192 LYs and 0.134 QALYs with cost savings of €1211 compared with SFC over lifetime. The net monetary benefit (NMB) was estimated to be €8560 based on a willingness-to-pay threshold of €55,000/QALY. The NMB was higher in the following subgroups: severe (GOLD 3), high risk and more symptoms (GOLD D), females, and current smokers. Conclusion: IND/GLY is a cost-effective treatment compared with SFC in COPD patients with mMRC dyspnea grade ≥ 2, moderate to very severe airflow limitation, and ≥1 exacerbation in the preceding year.