Dataset Information

The Impact of Chronic Urticaria from the Patient's Perspective: A Survey in Five European Countries.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) is associated with considerable burden, but data from European patients are limited.

Methods

This study is a retrospective, cross-sectional analysis of National Health and Wellness Survey data from the five largest EU countries (5EU: France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the UK) collected between 2010 and 2013. Burden of disease for patients with CSU was estimated by comparing individuals currently treated for chronic urticaria (proxy CSU cases) with controls selected from respondents without chronic urticaria. Matching and regression models were used to quantify the impact of chronic urticaria on health-related quality of life, self-reported psychological complaints, work and activity impairment, and healthcare use.

Results

The sample included 175,923 respondents. Prevalence of diagnosed chronic urticaria was 0.5 and 0.2% were treating the condition with a prescription. Cases (N = 369) had substantially lower (worse) regression-adjusted mean Mental Component Summary (40.2 vs. 45.4), Physical Component Summary (44.6 vs. 49.9), and SF-6D health utility scores (0.63 vs. 0.71; all p < 0.001) relative to controls (N = 1476), differences that exceed accepted minimally important differences for these measures. Depression, anxiety, and sleep difficulties were approximately twice as prevalent among those currently receiving treatment for chronic urticaria (all p < 0.001). Cases also had elevated presenteeism (31 vs. 17%), overall work impairment (37 vs. 20%), and impairment in non-work activities (42 vs. 26%; all p < 0.01) relative to controls. Physician visits (9.1 vs. 4.9), emergency room visits (0.8 vs. 0.3), and hospitalizations (0.3 vs. 0.2) were more frequent than in controls (all p < 0.01).

Conclusions

This research adds to the existing evidence showing significant burden of CSU.

SUBMITTER: Balp MM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4662955 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe approaches to the diagnosis and treatment of chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) differ in various parts of the world. We sought to determine the adherence to international and national urticaria guidelines as well as the motives to deviate from the guidelines among physicians worldwide.MethodsA web-based questionnaire was created and launched via e-mail by the World Allergy Organization (WAO) to representatives of all WAO Member Societies, the members of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology (AAAAI) and the members of the WAO Junior Members Group (JMG), regardless of the specialty, affiliation, or nationality in March 2017.ResultsWe received 1140 completed surveys from participating physicians from 99 countries. Virtually all participants (96%) were aware of at least one urticaria guideline and reported that they follow a guideline. However, one in five physicians who follow a guideline (22%) reported to deviate from it. Reliance on own clinical experience is the most frequent reason for deviation from guidelines or not following them (44%). Young (< 40 years) and less experienced physicians more often follow a guideline and less often deviate than older and experienced ones. Physicians who follow a urticaria guideline showed higher rates of routinely ordering a complete blood count, the erythrocyte sedimentation rate, C-reactive protein, anti-thyroid antibodies, and thyroid-stimulating hormone and of performing the autologous serum skin test as compared to those who do not. Physicians who follow a urticaria guideline showed higher rates of using second generation antihistamines as their first-line treatment of CSU (p = 0.001) and more frequently observed higher efficacy of these drugs (or had more confidence that it would work, p < 0.019) as compared to those who do not follow the guidelines.ConclusionsPhysicians' characteristics (e.g. age, clinical experience, and specialty) and country specifics and regional features (e.g. availability of drugs for CSU treatment) importantly influence adherence to urticaria guidelines and CSU patient care and should be addressed in more detail in future research.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:As part of the Models of Child Health Appraised (MOCHA) project, this study aimed to answer the following research questions: 1) How do European citizens perceive the quality of primary health care provided for children? And 2) What are their priorities with respect to quality assessment of primary health care aimed at satisfying children's needs? METHODS:Nine potential attributes of quality of primary care were operationalized in 40 quality aspects. An online survey was used to elicit opinions in a representative sample of citizens of Germany, the Netherlands, Poland, Spain, and the United Kingdom. Data collection comprised: background characteristics; perceived quality of primary health care for children; and priority setting of quality aspects. Descriptive analysis was performed and differences between groups were tested using Chi-Square test and ANOVA. RESULTS:Valid results were obtained from 2403 respondents. Mean satisfaction with quality of primary care ranged from 5.5 (Poland) to 7.2 (Spain). On average, between 56% (Poland) and 70% (Netherlands) of respondents had a positive perception of the primary health care system for children in their country. The ability of a child to limit their parents' access to the child's medical records was judged most negatively in all countries (average agreement score 28%, range 12-36%). The right of a child to a confidential consultation was judged most differently between countries (average agreement score 61%, range 40-75%). Overall top-10 priorities in ensuring high quality primary care were: timeliness (accessibility); skills/competences, management, facilities (appropriateness); no costs (affordability); information, dignity/respect (continuity); and swift referrals, collaboration (coordination). DISCUSSION:Between countries, significant differences exist in the perceived quality of primary care and priorities with regard to quality assessment. Taking into account the citizens' perspective in decision-making means that aspects with low perceived quality that are highly prioritized warrant further action.

Project description:AimRemote follow-up (FU) of implantable cardiac defibrillators (ICDs) allows for fewer in-office visits in combination with earlier detection of relevant findings. Its implementation requires investment and reorganization of care. Providers (physicians or hospitals) are unsure about the financial impact. The primary end-point of this randomized prospective multicentre health economic trial was the total FU-related cost for providers, comparing Home Monitoring facilitated FU (HM ON) to regular in-office FU (HM OFF) during the first 2 years after ICD implantation. Also the net financial impact on providers (taking national reimbursement into account) and costs from a healthcare payer perspective were evaluated.Methods and resultsA total of 312 patients with VVI- or DDD-ICD implants from 17 centres in six EU countries were randomised to HM ON or OFF, of which 303 were eligible for data analysis. For all contacts (in-office, calendar- or alert-triggered web-based review, discussions, calls) time-expenditure was tracked. Country-specific cost parameters were used to convert resource use into monetary values. Remote FU equipment itself was not included in the cost calculations. Given only two patients from Finland (one in each group) a monetary valuation analysis was not performed for Finland. Average age was 62.4 ± 13.1 years, 81% were male, 39% received a DDD system, and 51% had a prophylactic ICD. Resource use with HM ON was clearly different: less FU visits (3.79 ± 1.67 vs. 5.53 ± 2.32; P < 0.001) despite a small increase of unscheduled visits (0.95 ± 1.50 vs. 0.62 ± 1.25; P < 0.005), more non-office-based contacts (1.95 ± 3.29 vs. 1.01 ± 2.64; P < 0.001), more Internet sessions (11.02 ± 15.28 vs. 0.06 ± 0.31; P < 0.001) and more in-clinic discussions (1.84 ± 4.20 vs. 1.28 ± 2.92; P < 0.03), but with numerically fewer hospitalizations (0.67 ± 1.18 vs. 0.85 ± 1.43, P = 0.23) and shorter length-of-stay (6.31 ± 15.5 vs. 8.26 ± 18.6; P = 0.27), although not significant. For the whole study population, the total FU cost for providers was not different for HM ON vs. OFF [mean (95% CI): €204 (169-238) vs. €213 (182-243); range for difference (€-36 to 54), NS]. From a payer perspective, FU-related costs were similar while the total cost per patient (including other physician visits, examinations, and hospitalizations) was numerically (but not significantly) lower. There was no difference in the net financial impact on providers [profit of €408 (327-489) vs. €400 (345-455); range for difference (€-104 to 88), NS], but there was heterogeneity among countries, with less profit for providers in the absence of specific remote FU reimbursement (Belgium, Spain, and the Netherlands) and maintained or increased profit in cases where such reimbursement exists (Germany and UK). Quality of life (SF-36) was not different.ConclusionFor all the patients as a whole, FU-related costs for providers are not different for remote FU vs. purely in-office FU, despite reorganized care. However, disparity in the impact on provider budget among different countries illustrates the need for proper reimbursement to ensure effective remote FU implementation.