Plus de 2 000 articles, abstracts et communications fondés sur nos bases de données de vie réelle. Recherchez par mot-clé, base de données, aire thérapeutique ou année.
This cohort study of postmenopausal women in the United Kingdom aged ≥50years determined the incremental cost of health care and clinical outcomes in the 12months following incident, selected fractures (non-vertebral non-hip [NVNHF], vertebral [VF] and multiple [MF]). Incremental costs and outcomes of the fracture cohorts were compared with those of cohorts comprised of women without fractures who were individually matched on age and comorbidity. Cohorts were identified from The Health Improvement Network database, a primary health care database, from 2001 to 2005. We estimated 1-year incremental costs (hospitalizations; general practice, accident/emergency, and referral visits; and prescription medications) associated with each fracture type. Descriptive analyses examined occurrence of subsequent fractures and death. No long-term health care costs or outcomes were assessed. Overall, 14,030 women had NVNHF, 1471 had VF, and 193 had MF. The risk of death was greater for women with fractures than for women in the non-fracture cohorts. Mean incremental cost for fractures compared with no fractures was £1152 for VF; £690 for NVNHF, and £2581 for MF. Of the total incremental cost, hospitalizations represented 54%-90% and medications represented 7%-29%. In all fracture cohorts, most of the total annual costs were concentrated in the 6months after the date of fracture. Fractures among postmenopausal women represent an important burden to the health system due to the increase in health resource utilization and related costs. In this study, hospitalizations were the main driver of the overall incremental cost during the 12months following the fracture. Mortality in women in the selected fracture cohorts was higher than in women in the non-fracture cohorts.
BACKGROUND: Data from primary care records could potentially provide more comprehensive population-level information on smoking prevalence at lower cost and in a more timely fashion than commissioned national surveys. Therefore, we compared smoking prevalence calculated from a database of primary care electronic medical records with that from a 'gold standard' national survey to determine whether or not medical records can provide accurate population-level data on smoking. METHODS: For each year from 2000 to 2008, the annual recorded prevalence of current smoking among patients in The Health Improvement Network (THIN) Database was compared with the 'General Household Survey (GHS)-predicted prevalence' of smoking in the THIN population, calculated through indirect standardisation by applying age-, sex- and region-specific smoking rates from the corresponding GHS to the THIN population. RESULTS: Completeness of smoking data recording in THIN improved steadily in the study period. By 2008, there was good agreement between recorded smoking prevalence in THIN and the GHS-predicted prevalence; the GHS-predicted prevalence of current smoking in the THIN population was 21.8% for men and 20.2% for women, and the recorded prevalence was 22.4% and 18.9%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of current smoking recorded within THIN has converged towards that which would be expected if GHS smoking rates are applied to the THIN population. Data from electronic primary care databases such as THIN may provide an alternative means of monitoring national smoking prevalence.
OBJECTIVE: To estimate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of using a skin protectant (Cavilon No Sting Barrier Film [NSBF] or Cavilon Durable Barrier Cream [DBC]; 3M) compared with not using a skin protectant in the management of venous leg ulcers (VLUs), in the UK. METHOD: A decision model was constructed depicting the patient pathways and associated management of a cohort of patients with and without a Cavilon formulation, plus dressings and compression. The model was based on the case records of a cohort of matched patients from The Health Improvement Network (THIN) database, who were first diagnosed with a VLU between 1 Jan 2008 and 31 Dec 2009. The model estimated the costs and outcomes of patient management over 6 months and the cost-effectiveness of using a Cavilon formulation relative to not using a skin protectant. RESULTS: Patients' mean age was 80.2 years and 61% were female. Sixty-five per cent (n=166) of Cavilon patients received NSBF, and 35% received DBC. Between 6% and 9% of VLUs were healed at 6 months and 53-66% became infected. Healing was affected by a patient's age (OR: 0.944 for each additional year), but not by gender, level of exudate or wound size. There was a significantly greater reduction in wound size among patients in the NSBF group than in the other two groups (p<0.001). Additionally, there was no significant difference in the initial wound size of those VLUs that did and did not heal in the two Cavilon groups; however, initial size of the VLUs that healed in the control group was significantly smaller than those that did not (p<0.001). Resource use was similar between the three groups. Patients were predominantly managed by practice nurses, with a mean 37-38 nurse visits over the study period. Patients' dressings were changed, on average, every 4-5 days, with a mean of 3 dressings under a compression bandage. The total 6-monthly NHS cost of managing a VLU was ~£2200. Practice nurse visits were the primary cost driver, accounting for up to 58% of the 6-monthly NHS cost, whereas dressings accounted for <10% of the cost. CONCLUSION: Use of NSBF leads to significantly greater wound size reduction than that observed in the other two groups and may facilitate the healing of larger wounds without increasing costs. Hence, use of NSBF for peri-wound skin protection in patients with exuding VLUs is the preferred treatment strategy. DECLARATION OF INTEREST: This study was sponsored by 3M Health Care, manufacturers of Cavillon NSBF and Cavillon DBC. However, the authors have no other conflicts of interest that are directly relevant to the content of this manuscript, which remains their sole responsibility.
Contactez-nous pour discuter d'une collaboration et valoriser vos résultats dans des revues scientifiques prestigieuses.