These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Costs and effects of on-demand treatment of hereditary angioedema in Italy: a prospective cohort study of 167 patients.
    Author: Federici C, Perego F, Borsoi L, Crosta V, Zanichelli A, Gidaro A, Tarricone R, Cicardi M.
    Journal: BMJ Open; 2018 Jul 30; 8(7):e022291. PubMed ID: 30061443.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVES: To explore treatment behaviours in a cohort of Italian patients with hereditary angioedema due to complement C1-inhibitor deficiency (C1-INH-HAE), and to estimate how effects and costs of treating attacks in routine practice differed across available on-demand treatments. DESIGN: Cost analyses and survival analyses using attack-level data collected prospectively for 1 year. SETTING: National reference centre for C1-INH-HAE. PARTICIPANTS: 167 patients with proved diagnosis of C1-INH-HAE, who reported data on angioedema attacks, including severity, localisation and duration, treatment received, and use of other healthcare services. INTERVENTIONS: Attacks were treated with either icatibant, plasma-derived C1-INH (pdC1-INH) or just supportive care. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Treatment efficacy in reducing attack duration and the direct costs of acute attacks. RESULTS: Overall, 133 of 167 patients (79.6%) reported 1508 attacks during the study period, with mean incidence of 11 attacks per patient per year. Only 78.9% of attacks were treated in contrast to current guidelines. Both icatibant and pdC1-INH significantly reduced attack duration compared with no treatment (median times from onset 7, 10 and 47 hours, respectively), but remission rates with icatibant were 31% faster compared with pdC1-INH (HR 1.31, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.51). However, observed treatment behaviours suggest patterns of suboptimal dosing for pdC1-INH. The average cost per attack was €1183 (SD €789) resulting in €1.58 million healthcare costs during the observation period (€11 912 per patient per year). Icatibant was 54% more expensive than pdC1-INH, whereas age, sex and prophylactic treatment were not associated to higher or lower costs. CONCLUSIONS: Both icatibant and pdC1-INH significantly reduced attack duration compared with no treatment, however, icatibant was more effective but also more expensive. Treatment behaviours and suboptimal dosing of pdC1-INH may account for the differences, but further research is needed to define their role.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]