Rationale and design of the costs, health status and outcomes in community-acquired pneumonia (CHO-CAP) study in elderly persons hospitalized with CAP

BMC Infectious Diseases

G Ardine de Wit²  Marc JM Bonten³  Marie-Josée J Mangen¹ 

[1] Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, Utrecht 3584, CX, The Netherlands;National Institute of Public Health and the Environment, Antonie van Leeuwenhoeklaan 9, Bilthoven 3721, MA, The Netherlands;Department of Medical Microbiology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, Utrecht 3584, CX, The Netherlands

关键词: Societal costs;    Non-healthcare resources use;    Healthcare resources use;    Quality-of-life;    Community-acquired pneumonia;   

Others  :  1135747
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2334-13-597

 received in 2013-04-25, accepted in 2013-12-11,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

Vaccine effectiveness is usually determined in randomized controlled trials (RCT) and if effective, additional information, e.g. on cost-effectiveness, is required to allow evidence-based decision making. A prerequisite for proper health economic modelling is the availability of good quality data on health care resources use, health outcomes and quality-of-life (QoL) data. The “Collecting health outcomes and economic data on hospitalized Community Acquired Pneumonia (CHO-CAP) – a prospective cohort study” is executed alongside the Community Acquired Pneumonia Immunization Trial with Adults (CAPiTA trial) to capture health outcomes and economic data of elderly hospitalized with CAP and matched controls without CAP.

Methods/Design

CAPiTA is a placebo-controlled double-blind RCT evaluating the effectiveness of a 13-valent conjugated pneumococcal vaccine in preventing vaccine-type pneumococcal CAP in 84,496 elderly in the Netherlands. Participants of CAPiTA, who consented and provided information on health status (EQ-5D) and socio-demographic background at the time of vaccination, constitute the source population of CHO-CAP and are eligible for the nested matched cohort study. CHO-CAP patients hospitalized with CAP form the “diseased” cohort and the “non-diseased” cohort consists of unaffected persons (i.e. no CAP). Observations in the diseased cohort and in matched controls from the non-diseased cohort are used to determine excess costs and QoL changes attributable to CAP.

Based on an estimated 2,000 CAPiTA participants being hospitalized with CAP and an assumed CHO-CAP participation rate of 30% of all CAPiTA participants (±25,000), 600 CAP episodes are expected among CHO-CAP participants (the “diseased” cohort). For each patient with CAP, two non-diseased CHO-CAP subjects will be selected from the CHO-CAP cohort, with matching for age, gender and EQ-5D baseline-score. Data on healthcare and non-healthcare resources use, quality-of-life (using EQ-5D and SF-36 questionnaires) and selected health outcomes will be collected at 0, 1, 6 and 12 months after hospitalization for CAP.

The CHO-CAP study was approved by the Central Committee on Research involving Human Subjects in the Netherlands.

Discussion

With an expected 600 CAP episodes this study will be one of the biggest prospectively studied cohorts of hospitalized elderly with CAP with regard to resources use and Qol data. Strengths of this study further include collection of out-of-pocket costs of patients and productivity losses of both patients and their caregivers and the follow-up period of up to one year post-discharge. This study is therefore expected to add more in-depth knowledge on the short and longer term outcomes of pneumonia in elderly.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00812084.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Mangen et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Hak E, Grobbee DE, Sanders EA, Verheij TJ, Bolkenbaas M, Huijts SM, Gruber WC, Tansey S, McDonough A, Thoma B, Patterson S, van Alphen AJ, Bonten MJ: Rationale and design of CAPITA: a RCT of 13-valent conjugated pneumococcal vaccine efficacy among older adults. Neth J Med 2008, 66(9):378-383.
• [2]Belli P, Anderson JR, Barnum HN, Dixon JA, Tan JP: Economic Analysis of Investment Operations Analytical Tools and Practical Applications. Washingtion, D.C: World Bank Institute; 2001.
• [3]Drummond MF, O’Brien B, Stoddart GL, Torrance GW: Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1997.
• [4]Jacob C, Mittendorf T, Graf von der Schulenburg JM: Krankheitskosten sowie gesundheitsbezogene Lebensqualität (hrQoL) bei ambulant erworbener Pneumonie (CAP) – ein systematisches review [Costs of Illness and Health-Related Quality of Life for Community-Acquired Pneumonia - A Systematic Review]. Pneumologie 2011, 65(8):498-502.
• [5]Bauer TT, Welte T, Ernen C, Schlosser BM, Thate-Waschke I, de Zeeuw J, Schultze-Werninghaus G: Cost analyses of community-acquired pneumonia from the hospital perspective. Chest 2005, 128(4):2238-2246.
• [6]Bartolome M, Almirall J, Morera J, Pera G, Ortun V, Bassa J, Bolibar I, Balanzo X, Verdaguer A: A population-based study of the costs of care for community-acquired pneumonia. Eur Respir J 2004, 23(4):610-616.
• [7]Orrick JJ, Segal R, Johns TE, Russell W, Wang F, Yin DD: Resource use and cost of care for patients hospitalised with community acquired pneumonia: impact of adherence to infectious diseases society of america guidelines. Pharmacoeconomics 2004, 22(11):751-757.
• [8]Henderson A, Cleary M, Galbraith G, Hurford R: Prospective study of costs and outcome in a major adult Australian intensive care unit utilising the APACHE III severity scoring and prediction tool. Clin Intensive Care 1997, 8:58-62.
• [9]Birnbaum HG, Morley M, Greenberg PE, Cifaldi M, Colice GL: Economic burden of pneumonia in an employed population. Arch Intern Med 2001, 161(22):2725-2731.
• [10]Colice GL, Morley MA, Asche C, Birnbaum HG: Treatment costs of community-acquired pneumonia in an employed population. Chest 2004, 125(6):2140-2145.
• [11]Estrada CA, Unterborn JN, Price J, Thompson D, Gibson L: Judging the effectiveness of clinical pathways for pneumonia: the role of risk adjustment. Eff Clin Pract 2000, 3(5):221-228.
• [12]Guest JF, Morris A: Community-acquired pneumonia: the annual cost to the National Health Service in the UK. Eur Respir J 1997, 10(7):1530-1534.
• [13]Lave JR, Fine MJ, Sankey SS, Hanusa BH, Weissfeld LA, Kapoor WN: Hospitalized pneumonia. Outcomes, treatment patterns, and costs in urban and rural areas. J Gen Intern Med 1996, 11(7):415-421.
• [14]Frei CR, Burgess D: Community-acquired pneumonia: objective criteria to predict severe disease. J Infect Dis Pharmacother 2004, 6:39-48.
• [15]Kaplan V, Angus DC, Griffin MF, Clermont G, Scott Watson R, Linde-Zwirble WT: Hospitalized community-acquired pneumonia in the elderly: age- and sex-related patterns of care and outcome in the United States. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2002, 165(6):766-772.
• [16]Niederman MS, McCombs JS, Unger AN, Kumar A, Popovian R: The cost of treating community-acquired pneumonia. Clin Ther 1998, 20(4):820-837.
• [17]Sun HK, Nicolau DP, Kuti JL: Resource utilization of adults admitted to a large urban hospital with community-acquired pneumonia caused by Streptococcus pneumoniae. Chest 2006, 130(3):807-814.
• [18]Scott G, Scott H, Turley M, Baker M: Economic cost of community-acquired pneumonia in New Zealand adults. N Z Med J 2004, 117(1196):U933.
• [19]Reyes S, Martinez R, Valles JM, Cases E, Menendez R: Determinants of hospital costs in community-acquired pneumonia. Eur Respir J 2008, 31(5):1061-1067.
• [20]Eurich DT, Johnstone JJ, Minhas-Sandhu JK, Marrie TJ, Majumdar SR: Pneumococcal vaccination and risk of acute coronary syndromes in patients with pneumonia: population-based cohort study. Heart 2012, 98(14):1072-1077.
• [21]Hsu JL, Siroka AM, Smith MW, Holodniy M, Meduri GU: One-year outcomes of community-acquired and healthcare-associated pneumonia in the Veterans Affairs Healthcare System. Int J Infect Dis 2011, 15(6):e382-e387.
• [22]Oppe M, Rabin R, de Charo F, on behalf of the EuroQol Group: EQ-5D user guide. Version 1. Rotterdam: Euroqol; 2008. Online available at : http://www.euroqol.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Documenten/PDF/Folders_Flyers/EQ-5D-3L_UserGuide_2013_v5.0_October_2013.pdf webcite
• [23]Lamers LM, Stalmeier PF, McDonnell J, Krabbe PF, van Busschbach JJ: Kwaliteit van leven meten in economische evaluaites: het Nederlands EQ-5D-tarief [Measuring the quality of life in economic evaluations: the Dutch EQ-5D tariff]. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd 2005, 149(28):1574-1578.
• [24]Ware JE, Sherbourne CD: The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36): I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 1992, 30:473-483.
• [25]McHorney CA, Ware JE, Raczek AE: The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36): II. Psychometric and clinical tests of validity in measuring physical and mental health constructs. Med Care 1993, 31:247-263.
• [26]Hakkaart van Roijen L, Tan SS, Bouwmans CAM: Handleiding voor kostenonderzoek - methoden en standaard kostprijzen voor economische evaluaties in de gezondheidszorg. Diemen: College voor zorgverzekeringen; 2010.