Cost and effectiveness of prescribing emollient therapy for atopic eczema in UK primary care in children and adults: a large retrospective analysis of the Clinical Practice Research Datalink.

Q2 Medicine
George Moncrieff, Annie Lied-Lied, Gill Nelson, Chantal E Holy, Rachel Weinstein, David Wei, Simon Rowe
{"title":"Cost and effectiveness of prescribing emollient therapy for atopic eczema in UK primary care in children and adults: a large retrospective analysis of the Clinical Practice Research Datalink.","authors":"George Moncrieff, Annie Lied-Lied, Gill Nelson, Chantal E Holy, Rachel Weinstein, David Wei, Simon Rowe","doi":"10.1186/s12895-018-0076-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) was used to evaluate the overall costs to the National Health Service, including healthcare utilisation, of prescribing emollients in UK primary care for dry skin and atopic eczema (DS&E).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Primary care patients in the UK were identified using the CPRD and their records were interrogated for the 2 years following first diagnosis of DS&E. Data from patients with (n = 45,218) and without emollient prescriptions (n = 9780) were evaluated. Multivariate regression models were used to compare healthcare utilisation and cost in the two matched groups (age, sex, diagnosis). Two sub-analyses of the Emollient group were performed between matched groups receiving (1) a colloidal oatmeal emollient (Aveeno-First) versus non-colloidal oatmeal emollients (Aveeno-Never) and (2) Aveeno prescribed first-line (Aveeno-First) versus prescribed Aveeno later (Aveeno-Subsequently). Logistic regression models calculated the odds of prescription with either potent / very potent topical corticosteroids (TCS) or skin-related antimicrobials.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Costs per patient were £125.80 in Emollient (n = 7846) versus £128.13 in Non-Emollient (n = 7846) matched groups (p = 0.08). The Emollient group had fewer visits/patient (2.44 vs. 2.66; p < 0.0001) and lower mean per-visit costs (£104.15 vs. £113.25; p < 0.0001), compared with the Non-Emollient group. Non-Emollient patients had 18% greater odds of being prescribed TCS and 13% greater odds of being prescribed an antimicrobial than Emollient patients. In the Aveeno-First (n = 1943) versus Aveeno-Never (n = 1943) sub-analysis, costs per patient were lower in the Aveeno-First compared with the Aveeno-Never groups (£133.46 vs. £141.11; p = 0.0069). The Aveeno-Never group had ≥21% greater odds of being prescribed TCS or antimicrobial than the Aveeno-First group. In the Aveeno-First (n = 1357) versus Aveeno-Subsequently (n = 1357) sub-analysis, total costs were lower in the Aveeno-First group (£140.35 vs. £206.43; p < 0.001). Patients in the Aveeno-Subsequently group had 91% greater odds of being prescribed TCS and 75% greater odds of being prescribed an antimicrobial than the Aveeno-First group.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Acknowledging limitations from unknown disease severity in the CRPD, the prescription of emollients to treat DS&E was associated with fewer primary care visits, reduced healthcare utilisation and reduced cost. Prescribing emollients, especially those containing colloidal oatmeal, was associated with fewer TCS and antimicrobial prescriptions.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>The study is registered at http://isrctn.com/ISRCTN91126037 .</p>","PeriodicalId":9014,"journal":{"name":"BMC Dermatology","volume":"18 1","pages":"9"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-10-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6206824/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Dermatology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12895-018-0076-y","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) was used to evaluate the overall costs to the National Health Service, including healthcare utilisation, of prescribing emollients in UK primary care for dry skin and atopic eczema (DS&E).

Methods: Primary care patients in the UK were identified using the CPRD and their records were interrogated for the 2 years following first diagnosis of DS&E. Data from patients with (n = 45,218) and without emollient prescriptions (n = 9780) were evaluated. Multivariate regression models were used to compare healthcare utilisation and cost in the two matched groups (age, sex, diagnosis). Two sub-analyses of the Emollient group were performed between matched groups receiving (1) a colloidal oatmeal emollient (Aveeno-First) versus non-colloidal oatmeal emollients (Aveeno-Never) and (2) Aveeno prescribed first-line (Aveeno-First) versus prescribed Aveeno later (Aveeno-Subsequently). Logistic regression models calculated the odds of prescription with either potent / very potent topical corticosteroids (TCS) or skin-related antimicrobials.

Results: Costs per patient were £125.80 in Emollient (n = 7846) versus £128.13 in Non-Emollient (n = 7846) matched groups (p = 0.08). The Emollient group had fewer visits/patient (2.44 vs. 2.66; p < 0.0001) and lower mean per-visit costs (£104.15 vs. £113.25; p < 0.0001), compared with the Non-Emollient group. Non-Emollient patients had 18% greater odds of being prescribed TCS and 13% greater odds of being prescribed an antimicrobial than Emollient patients. In the Aveeno-First (n = 1943) versus Aveeno-Never (n = 1943) sub-analysis, costs per patient were lower in the Aveeno-First compared with the Aveeno-Never groups (£133.46 vs. £141.11; p = 0.0069). The Aveeno-Never group had ≥21% greater odds of being prescribed TCS or antimicrobial than the Aveeno-First group. In the Aveeno-First (n = 1357) versus Aveeno-Subsequently (n = 1357) sub-analysis, total costs were lower in the Aveeno-First group (£140.35 vs. £206.43; p < 0.001). Patients in the Aveeno-Subsequently group had 91% greater odds of being prescribed TCS and 75% greater odds of being prescribed an antimicrobial than the Aveeno-First group.

Conclusions: Acknowledging limitations from unknown disease severity in the CRPD, the prescription of emollients to treat DS&E was associated with fewer primary care visits, reduced healthcare utilisation and reduced cost. Prescribing emollients, especially those containing colloidal oatmeal, was associated with fewer TCS and antimicrobial prescriptions.

Trial registration: The study is registered at http://isrctn.com/ISRCTN91126037 .

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

英国基层医疗机构为儿童和成人特应性湿疹开润肤剂处方的成本和效果:临床实践研究数据链接的大型回顾性分析。
背景:利用临床实践研究数据链接(CPRD)评估英国初级医疗机构为皮肤干燥和特应性湿疹(DS&E)患者开润肤剂的总体成本,包括医疗服务的使用情况:方法:利用 CPRD 确定英国初级医疗患者的身份,并查询他们在首次诊断 DS&E 后两年内的病历。对开具润肤剂处方(n = 45,218 例)和未开具润肤剂处方(n = 9780 例)的患者数据进行了评估。多变量回归模型用于比较两个匹配组(年龄、性别、诊断)的医疗利用率和成本。在接受(1)胶体燕麦润肤剂(Aveeno-First)与非胶体燕麦润肤剂(Aveeno-Never)和(2)一线处方 Aveeno(Aveeno-First)与后期处方 Aveeno(Aveeno-Subsequently)的匹配组之间,对润肤剂组进行了两项子分析。逻辑回归模型计算了处方强效/极强效外用皮质类固醇(TCS)或皮肤相关抗菌药的几率:润肤剂组(7846 人)与非润肤剂组(7846 人)的人均费用分别为 125.80 英镑和 128.13 英镑(P = 0.08)。Emollient 组患者的就诊次数少于非 Emollient 组(2.44 对 2.66;p 结论:Emollient 组患者的就诊次数少于非 Emollient 组(2.44 对 2.66;p):尽管CRPD的疾病严重程度不明,但处方润肤剂治疗DS&E与减少初级保健就诊次数、降低医疗保健使用率和费用有关。处方润肤剂,尤其是含有胶体燕麦片的润肤剂,与减少TCS和抗菌药处方有关:该研究已在 http://isrctn.com/ISRCTN91126037 上注册。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
BMC Dermatology
BMC Dermatology Medicine-Dermatology
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: BMC Dermatology is an open access journal publishing original peer-reviewed research articles in all aspects of the prevention, diagnosis and management of skin disorders, as well as related molecular genetics, pathophysiology, and epidemiology. BMC Dermatology (ISSN 1471-5945) is indexed/tracked/covered by PubMed, MEDLINE, CAS, EMBASE, Scopus and Google Scholar.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信