Division of Health Policy and Management, University of Minnesota School of Public Health, Minneapolis.
Cardiovascular Division, University of Minnesota Medical School, Minneapolis.
JAMA Dermatol. 2015 Nov;151(11):1187-93. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2015.1895.
The prevalence and clinical burden of lymphedema is known to be increasing. Nevertheless, evidence-based comparative effectiveness data regarding lymphedema therapeutic interventions have been poor.
To examine the impact of an advanced pneumatic compression device (APCD) on cutaneous and other clinical outcomes and health economic costs in a representative privately insured population of lymphedema patients.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective analysis of a deidentified private insurance database from 2007 through 2013, and multivariate regression analysis comparing outcomes for the 12 months before and after APCD purchase, adjusting for baseline patient characteristics. Patients with lymphedema who received an APCD who were commercially insured and Medicare managed care enrollees from a large, national US managed care health insurer. The study population was evaluated as cancer-related and non-cancer-related lymphedema cohorts.
Receipt of an APCD.
Rates of cellulitis, use of lymphedema-related manual therapy, outpatient hospital visits, and inpatient hospitalizations. Lymphedema-related direct costs were measured for home health care, hospital outpatient care, office visits, emergency department use, and inpatient care.
The study sample included 718 patients (374 in the cancer cohort and 344 in the noncancer cohort). In both cohorts, use of an APCD was associated with similar reductions in adjusted rates of cellulitis episodes (from 21.1% to 4.5% in the cancer cohort and 28.8% to 7.3% in the noncancer cohort; P < .001 for both), lymphedema-related manual therapy (from 35.6% to 24.9%in the cancer cohort and 32.3% to 21.2% in the noncancer cohort; P < .001 for both), and outpatient visits (from 58.6% to 41.4% in the cancer cohort and 52.6% to 31.4% in the noncancer cohort; P < .001 for both). Among the cancer cohort, total lymphedema-related costs per patient, excluding medical equipment costs, were reduced by 37% (from $2597 to $1642, P = .002). The corresponding decline in costs for the noncancer cohort was 36% (from $2937 to $1883, P = .007).
The study found an association between significant reductions in episodes of cellulitis (cancer vs noncancer cohorts) and outpatient care and costs of APCD acquisition within a 1-year time frame in patients with both cancer-related and non-cancer-related lymphedema.
据知,淋巴水肿的患病率和临床负担正在增加。然而,关于淋巴水肿治疗干预的循证比较效果数据一直很差。
在一个具有代表性的私人保险的淋巴水肿患者群体中,检查一种先进的气动压缩设备 (APCD) 对皮肤和其他临床结果以及健康经济成本的影响。
设计、设置和参与者:对 2007 年至 2013 年的一个匿名私人保险数据库进行回顾性分析,并对购买 APCD 前后 12 个月的结果进行多变量回归分析,同时调整基线患者特征。接受 APCD 的患有淋巴水肿的商业保险和医疗保险管理式医疗参保者,他们来自一家大型美国管理式医疗保险公司。该研究人群被评估为癌症相关和非癌症相关淋巴水肿队列。
接受 APCD。
蜂窝织炎的发生率、淋巴水肿相关手动治疗的使用、门诊医院就诊和住院治疗。测量了淋巴水肿相关的直接成本,包括家庭保健、医院门诊护理、办公室就诊、急诊使用和住院护理。
研究样本包括 718 名患者(癌症队列 374 名,非癌症队列 344 名)。在两个队列中,使用 APCD 均可相似地降低调整后的蜂窝织炎发作率(癌症队列从 21.1%降至 4.5%,非癌症队列从 28.8%降至 7.3%;两者均 P <.001)、淋巴水肿相关手动治疗率(癌症队列从 35.6%降至 24.9%,非癌症队列从 32.3%降至 21.2%;两者均 P <.001)和门诊就诊率(癌症队列从 58.6%降至 41.4%,非癌症队列从 52.6%降至 31.4%;两者均 P <.001)。在癌症队列中,每位患者的淋巴水肿相关总成本(不包括医疗设备成本)减少了 37%(从 2597 美元降至 1642 美元,P =.002)。非癌症队列的相应成本下降了 36%(从 2937 美元降至 1883 美元,P =.007)。
研究发现,在具有癌症相关和非癌症相关淋巴水肿的患者中,在 1 年时间范围内,APCD 的使用与蜂窝织炎发作(癌症与非癌症队列)和门诊护理的显著减少以及 APCD 获得的成本降低之间存在关联。