AIMS: We assessed outcomes of a pilot long-term stroke care clinic which combined secondary prevention and rehabilitation at community level.
SETTINGS AND DESIGN: A prospective observational study of stroke patients treated between 2008 and 2010 at a primary care teaching facility.
SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Analysis of patients was done at initial contact and at 1-year post treatment. Clinical outcomes included stroke risk factor(s) control, depression according to Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ9), and level of independence using Barthel Index (BI).
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS USED: Differences in means between baseline and post treatment were compared using paired t-tests or Wilcoxon-signed rank test. Significance level was set at 0.05.
RESULTS: Ninety-one patients were analyzed. Their mean age was 62.9 [standard deviation (SD) 10.9] years, mean stroke episodes were 1.30 (SD 0.5). The median interval between acute stroke and first contact with the clinic 4.0 (interquartile range 9.0) months. Mean systolic blood pressure decreased by 9.7 mmHg (t = 2.79, P = 0.007), while mean diastolic blood pressure remained unchanged at 80mmHg (z = 1.87, P = 0.06). Neurorehabilitation treatment was given to 84.6% of the patients. Median BI increased from 81 (range: 2-100) to 90.5 (range: 27-100) (Z = 2.34, P = 0.01). Median PHQ9 scores decreased from 4.0 (range: 0-22) to 3.0 (range: 0-19) though the change was not significant (Z= -0.744, P = 0.457).
CONCLUSIONS: Primary care-driven long-term stroke care services yield favorable outcomes for blood pressure control and functional level.
METHODS: Published literature on multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) were studied and five sessions of expert group discussions were conducted to build the MAST framework and to review the evidence. The attributes identified and selected for analysis were efficacy (clinical efficacy, clinical endpoints), safety (drug interactions, serious side effects and documentation), drug applicability (drug strength/formulation, indications, dose frequency, side effects, food-drug interactions, and dose adjustments), and cost. The average weights assigned by the members for efficacy, safety, drug applicability and cost were 32.6%, 26.2%, 24.1%, and 17.1%, respectively. The utility values of the attributes were scored based on the published evidence or/and agreements during the group discussions. The attribute scores were added up to provide the total utility score.
RESULTS: Using the MAST, the six statins under review were successfully scored and ranked. Atorvastatin scored the highest total utility score (TUS) of 84.48, followed by simvastatin (83.11). Atorvastatin and simvastatin scored consistently high, even before drug costs were included. The low scores on the side effects for atorvastatin were compensated for by the higher scores on the clinical endpoints resulting in a higher TUS for atorvastatin. Fluvastatin recorded the lowest TUS.
CONCLUSION: The multiattribute scoring tool was successfully applied to organize decision variables in reviewing statins for the formulary. Based on the TUS, atorvastatin is recommended to remain in the formulary and be considered as first-line in the treatment of hypercholesterolemia.
METHODS: Five specialist periodontal clinics in the Ministry of Health represented the public sector in providing clinical and cost data for this study. Newly-diagnosed periodontitis patients (N = 165) were recruited and followed up for one year of specialist periodontal care. Direct and indirect costs from the societal viewpoint were included in the cost analysis. They were measured in 2012 Ringgit Malaysia (MYR) and estimated from the societal perspective using activity-based and step-down costing methods, and substantiated by clinical pathways. Cost of dental equipment, consumables and labour (average treatment time) for each procedure was measured using activity-based costing method. Meanwhile, unit cost calculations for clinic administration, utilities and maintenance used step-down approach. Patient expenditures and absence from work were recorded via diary entries. The conversion from MYR to Euro was based on the 2012 rate (1€ = MYR4).
RESULTS: A total of 2900 procedures were provided, with an average cost of MYR 2820 (€705) per patient for the study year, and MYR 376 (€94) per outpatient visit. Out of this, 90% was contributed by provider cost and 10% by patient cost; 94% for direct cost and 4% for lost productivity. Treatment of aggressive periodontitis was significantly higher than for chronic periodontitis (t-test, P = 0.003). Higher costs were expended as disease severity increased (ANOVA, P = 0.022) and for patients requiring surgeries (ANOVA, P