Objectives: Imatinib (Glivec) has been covered by critical disease insurance for treatment of chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) in Jiangsu province of China since 2013. Further, free molecular monitoring has been provided to patients at top clinical centers as part of a pilot study that has changed the local treatment pattern and outcomes of patients with CML. This study evaluates the impact of medical insurance coverage and the molecular monitoring frequency on outcomes of patients with CML treated at a central hospital in Jiangsu, China, according to patient-level data.
Methods: The study investigated 335 CML patients receiving medical treatment in a central hospital between January 1, 2011 and December 31, 2014. Demographic and clinical characteristics were extracted from the patients’ clinical records. Univariate and multivariate analyses using the logistic regression model were performed to identify the differences in outcomes of major molecular response (MMR) or complete cytogenetic response (CCyR) between patients who were insured vs uninsured, or between patients with frequency of PCR monitoring ≤2 times vs ≥3 times per year.
Results: Both the achievement of MMR (BCR-ABLIS ≤0.1%) (50.4% vs 37.5%) and CCyR (80.7% vs 62.8%) at 12 months have shown significant differences that favored patients with insurance coverage of imatinib, while there was no significant difference in the outcome of BCR-ABLIS ≤1% between insured and non-insured groups (56.0% vs 51.3%) at 6 months. The long-term results at 24 months demonstrated that there was a statistically significant difference in MMR rates between the group with 3 or more PCR monitoring tests per year and the group of patients with 2 or less PCR tests per year (76.9% vs 52.2%).
Conclusions: The study findings suggest that CML patients benefit from insurance coverage of imatinib and higher frequency (≥3) of regularly scheduled molecular monitoring PCR in China. 相似文献
Aims: The purpose of this study is to assess the economic cost differences and the associated treatment resource changes between the developing coronary artery disease (CAD) diagnostic tool fast strain-encoded cardiac imaging (Fast-SENC) and the current commonly used stress test single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT).Materials and methods: A “payer perspective” model was created first, consisting of long-term and short-term components that used a hypothetical cohort of patients of average age (60.8?years) presenting with chest pain and suspected CAD to assess cost-impact. A cost impact model was then built that assessed likely savings from a “hospital perspective” from substituting Fast-SENC for a portion of SPECTs assuming an average number of annual SPECT tests performed in US hospitals.Results: In the payer model, using Fast-SENC followed by coronary angiography (CA) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) treatment when necessary is less costly than the SPECT method when considering both direct and indirect costs of testing. Expected costs of the Fast-SENC were between $2,510 and $2,632 per correct diagnosis, while expected costs for the SPECT were between $3,157 and $4,078. Fast-SENC reduced false positives by 50% and false negatives by 86%, generating additional cost savings. The hospital model showed total costs per CAD patient visit of $825 for SPECT and $376 for Fast-SENC.Limitations: Limitations of this study are that clinical data are sourced from other published clinical trials on how CAD diagnostic strategies impact clinical outcome, and that necessary assumptions were made which impact health outcomes.Conclusion: The lower cost, higher sensitivity and specificity rates, and faster, less burdensome process for detecting CAD patients make Fast-SENC a more capable and economically beneficial stress test than SPECT. The payer model and hospital model demonstrate an alignment between payer and provider economics as Fast-SENC provides monetary savings for patients and resource benefits for hospitals. 相似文献
