RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost of lost productivity in the workplace due to allergic rhinitis compared to other selected medical conditions from an employer perspective. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: A total of 8267 US employees at 47 employer locations who volunteered to participate in health/wellness screenings. MEASUREMENTS: The Work Productivity Short Inventory was used to assess the impact of a predefined group of health conditions on workplace productivity for the previous 12 months. Both absenteeism and presenteeism (lost productivity while at work) were recorded. Costs were calculated using a standard hourly wage. RESULTS: Allergic rhinitis was the most prevalent of the selected conditions; 55% of employees reported experiencing allergic rhinitis symptoms for an average of 52.5 days, were absent 3.6 days per year due to the condition, and were unproductive 2.3 h per workday when experiencing symptoms. The mean total productivity (absenteeism + presenteeism) losses per employee per year were 593 US dollars for allergic rhinitis, 518 US dollars for high stress, 277 US dollars for migraine, 273 US dollars for depression, 269 US dollars for arthritis/rheumatism, 248 US dollars for anxiety disorder, 181 US dollars for respiratory infections, 105 US dollars for hypertension or high blood pressure, 95 US dollars for diabetes, 85 US dollars for asthma, and 40 US dollars for coronary heart disease. The mean total productivity loss per employee per year due to caregiving was 102 US dollars for pediatric respiratory infections, 85 US dollars for pediatric allergies, 49 US dollars for Alzheimer's disease, and 42 US dollars for otitis media/earache. CONCLUSIONS: Allergies are major contributors to the total cost of health-related absenteeism and presenteeism. Payers and employers need to consider this when determining health benefits for employees.
Asunto(s)
Salud Laboral , Hipersensibilidad Respiratoria/economía , Rinitis/economía , Costos y Análisis de Costo , Humanos , Prevalencia , Hipersensibilidad Respiratoria/epidemiología , Rinitis/epidemiología , Estados Unidos , Lugar de TrabajoRESUMEN
STUDY OBJECTIVES: Using data from a published clinical trial, our objectives were to compare the cost advantage of voriconazole over amphotericin B deoxycholate (AmBd) for primary treatment of invasive aspergillosis and to determine the financial impact the findings would have in a real-world clinical setting. DESIGN: Pharmacoeconomic analysis. SETTING: University hospital. PATIENTS: Two hundred seventy-seven patients in the modified intent-to-treat population. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: An analysis was performed of drug acquisition costs for all patients in the modified intent-to-treat population, which consisted of 144 patients in the voriconazole group and 133 in the AmBd group. The analysis included costs of initial drug therapy; conversion from intravenous to oral treatment for patients receiving voriconazole; and the types, dosages, and duration of other licensed [Food and Drug Administration-approved] antifungal therapy (OLAT) for up to three OLAT regimens/patient. Current drug costs for our university hospital were used for all calculations. Total voriconazole costs were $784,405 ($581,008 for initial therapy with voriconazole, $203,397 for OLAT) compared with $852,238 for AmBd ($31,677 for initial AmBd therapy, $820,561 for OLAT). Over the 12-week study period, the cost/patient was $961 less for patients whose initial treatment was voriconazole than for those whose initial treatment was AmBd. Other licensed antifungal therapy accounted for 26% and 96% of total drug costs for voriconazole and AmBd, respectively. Other licensed antifungal therapy was given to 36% of voriconazole-treated patients and 80% of AmBd-treated patients. CONCLUSION: These data demonstrate the importance of evaluating total drug costs when comparing treatment regimens and not just initial therapy. Initial therapy with voriconazole had a cost advantage over AmBd in total antifungal drug cost/patient.