Introduction
Considering the advances in haemophilia management and treatment observed in the last decades, a new set of value-based outcome indicators is needed to assess the quality of care and the impact of these medical innovations.
Aim
The Value-Based Healthcare in Haemophilia project aimed to define a set of clinical outcome indicators (COIs) and patient-reported outcome indicators (PROIs) to assess quality of care in haemophilia in high-income countries with a value-based approach to inform and guide the decision-making process.
Methods
A Value-based healthcare approach based on the available literature, current guidelines and the involvement of a multidisciplinary group of experts was applied to generate a set of indicators to assess the quality of care of haemophilia.
Results
A final list of three COIs and five PROIs was created and validated. The identified COIs focus on two domains: musculoskeletal health and function, and safety. The identified PROIs cover five domains: bleeding frequency, pain, mobility and physical activities, Health-Related Quality of Life and satisfaction. Finally, two composite outcomes, one based on COIs, and one based on PROIs, were proposed as synthetic outcome indicators of quality of care.
Conclusion
The presented standard set of health outcome indicators provides the basis for harmonised longitudinal and cross-sectional monitoring and comparison. The implementation of this value-based approach would enable a more robust assessment of quality of care in haemophilia, within a framework of continuous treatment improvements with potential added value for patients. Moreover, proposed COIs and PROIs should be reviewed and updated routinely.

Background and purpose
Essential tremor (ET) is one of the most common neurological disorders, but information on treatment pattern is still scant. The aim of this study was to describe the demographic and clinical characteristics, treatment patterns, and determinants of drug use in patients with newly diagnosed ET in France and the United Kingdom.

Methods
Incident cases of ET diagnosed between January 1, 2015 and December 31, 2018 with 2 years of follow-up were identified by using The Health Improvement Network (THIN®) general practice database. During the follow-up, we assessed the daily prevalence of use and potential switches from first-line to second-line treatment or other lines of treatment. Logistic regression models were conducted to assess the effect of demographic and clinical characteristics on the likelihood of receiving ET treatment.

Results
A total of 2957 and 3249 patients were selected in the United Kingdom and France, respectively. Among ET patients, drug use increased from 12 months to 1 month prior the date of index diagnosis (ID). After ID, nearly 40% of patients received at least one ET treatment, but during follow-up drug use decreased and at the end of the follow-up approximately 20% of patients were still on treatment. Among treated patients, ≤10% maintained the same treatment throughout the entire follow-up, nearly 20% switched, and 40%–75% interrupted any treatment. Results from the multivariate analysis revealed that, both in France and the United Kingdom, patients receiving multiple concomitant therapies and affected by psychiatric conditions were more likely to receive an ET medication.

Conclusion
This study shows that ET is an undertreated disease with a lower-than-expected number of patients receiving and maintaining pharmacological treatment. Misclassification of ET diagnosis should be acknowledged; thus, results require cautious interpretation.

Introduction
Clinical trials confirmed the beneficial effects of adding pertuzumab (P) to the combination of trastuzumab-chemotherapy (TC) in the (neo)adjuvant setting of high-risk HER2-positive early breast cancer (HER2+BC). We evaluated the clinical, economic and societal impact of adding pertuzumab to neoadjuvant TC combination (TPC) in Italy.

Methods
A cost-consequence analysis comparing TPC vs. TC was performed developing a cohort-based multi-state Markov model to estimate the clinical, societal and economic impact of the neoadjuvant therapy of TPC versus TC in HER2+BC at high-risk of recurrence. The model works on a cycle length of 1 month and 5-years-time horizon. Literature review-based data were used to populate the model. The following clinical and economic outcomes were estimated: cumulative incidence of loco-regional/distant recurrences, life of years and QALY and both direct and indirect costs (€). Finally, sensitivity analyses were performed.

Results
TPC was associated with a 75,630 € saved of direct costs. Specifically, it was associated with an initial increase of treatment costs (+4.8%) followed by reduction of recurrence management cost (−20.4%). TPC was also associated with an indirect cost reduction of 1.40%, as well as decreased incidence of distant recurrence (−20.14%), days of work lost (−1.53%) and days lived with disability (−0.50%). Furthermore, TPC reported 10,47 QALY gained (+2.77%) compared to TC. The probability to achieve the pathological complete response (pCR) was the parameter that mostly affected the results in the sensitivity analysis.

Conclusion
Our findings suggested that TPC combination could be a cost-saving option in patients with HER2+BC at high-risk of recurrence.

The management of atrial fibrillation (AF), the most common sustained arrhythmia, impacts healthcare resource utilization (HCRU). This study aims to estimate global resource use in AF patients, using the GARFIELD-AF registry. A prospective cohort study was conducted to characterize HCRU in AF patients enrolled in sequential cohorts from 2012 to 2016 in 35 countries. Components of HCRU studied were hospital admissions, outpatient care visits, and diagnostic and interventional procedures occurring during follow-up. AF-related HCRU was reported as the percentage of patients demonstrating at least one event and was quantified as rate-per-patient-per-year (PPPY) over time. A total of 49,574 patients was analyzed, having an overall median follow-up of 719 days. Almost all patients (99.5%) had at least one outpatient care visit, while hospital admissions were the second most frequent medical contact, with similar proportions in North America (37.5%) and Europe (37.2%), and slightly higher in the other GARFIELD-AF countries (42.0%; namely Australia, Egypt, and South Africa). Asia and Latin America showed lower percentages of hospitalizations, outpatient care visits, and diagnostic and interventional procedures. Analyses of GARFIELD-AF highlighted the vast AF-related HCRU, underlying significant geographical differences in the type, quantity, and frequency of AF-related HCRU. These differences were likely attributable to health service availability and differing models of care.

Background
The efficacy and safety of the anticoagulant rivaroxaban for the treatment and secondary prevention of deep-vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism has been shown in phase 3 trials. However, data about rivaroxaban use in routine clinical practice are needed.
Methods
XA inhibition with rivaroxaban for Long-term and Initial Anticoagulation in venous thromboembolism (XALIA) was a multicentre, international, prospective, non-interventional study of patients with deep-vein thrombosis, done in hospitals and community care centres in 21 countries. The study investigated the safety and effectiveness of rivaroxaban compared with standard anticoagulation therapy (initial treatment with unfractionated heparin, low-molecular-weight heparin, or fondaparinux, usually overlapping with and followed by a vitamin K antagonist) for at least 3 months. Eligible patients were adults (aged ≥18 years) with an objectively confirmed diagnosis of deep-vein thrombosis, and an indication to receive anticoagulation treatment for at least 3 months. Following approval of rivaroxaban for the pulmonary embolism indication, patients with deep-vein thrombosis and concomitant pulmonary embolism were also eligible; however, those with isolated pulmonary embolism were not included. Type, dose, and duration of therapy for each patient were at the physician's discretion. The primary effectiveness and safety outcomes were major bleeding, recurrent venous thromboembolism, and all-cause mortality. Propensity score-adjusted analyses were done to account for potential imbalances between groups. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01619007.
Findings
Between June 26, 2012, and March 31, 2014, 5142 patients were enrolled. The safety population (all patients who received at least one dose of the anticoagulant of interest) comprised 2619 patients in the rivaroxaban group and 2149 in the standard anticoagulant therapy group. Patients in the rivaroxaban group were younger and fewer had active cancer or concomitant pulmonary embolism than those in the standard anticoagulation group. In the propensity score-adjusted population, the frequency of major bleeding was 0·8% (19/2505) in the rivaroxaban group and 2·1% (43/2010) in the standard anticoagulation group, with a propensity score-adjusted hazard ratio (HR) of 0·77 (95% CI 0·40–1·50); p=0·44. The frequency of recurrent venous thromboembolism was 1·4% (36/2505) in the rivaroxaban group and 2·3% (47/2010) in the standard anticoagulation group (propensity score-adjusted HR 0·91 [95% CI 0·54–1·54], p=0·72). The all-cause mortality frequency was 0·4% (11/2505) in the rivaroxaban group and 3·4% (69/2010) in the standard anticoagulation group (propensity score-adjusted HR 0·51 [95% CI 0·24–1·07], p=0·074). The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events in the safety population was similar between the two groups (944 [36·0%] of 2619 in the rivaroxaban group vs 805 [37·5%] of 2149 in the standard anticoagulation group).
Interpretation
In routine clinical practice, rivaroxaban-treated patients had a lower risk profile at baseline than those treated with standard anticoagulation. Propensity score-adjusted results confirm that rivaroxaban is a safe and effective alternative to standard anticoagulation therapy in a broad range of patients. Rates of major bleeding and recurrent venous thromboembolism were low in rivaroxaban-treated patients and consistent with phase 3 findings.
Funding
Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals and Janssen Research & Development, LLC.

BACKGROUND
Patients with severe hemophilia A and factor VIII inhibitors are at increased risk for serious bleeding complications and progression to end-stage joint disease. Effective strategies to prevent bleeding in such patients have not yet been established.
METHODS
We enrolled patients with hemophilia A who were older than 2 years of age, had high-titer inhibitors, and used concentrates known as bypassing agents for bleeding in a prospective, randomized, crossover study comparing 6 months of anti-inhibitor coagulant complex (AICC), infused prophylactically at a target dose of 85 U per kilogram of body weight (±15%) on 3 nonconsecutive days per week, with 6 months of on-demand therapy (AICC at a target dose of 85 U per kilogram [±15%] used for bleeding episodes). The two treatment periods were separated by a 3-month washout period, during which patients received on-demand therapy for bleeding. The primary outcome was the number of bleeding episodes during each 6-month treatment period.
RESULTS
Thirty-four patients underwent randomization; 26 patients completed both treatment periods and could be evaluated per protocol for the efficacy analysis. As compared with on-demand therapy, prophylaxis was associated with a 62% reduction in all bleeding episodes (P<0.001), a 61% reduction in hemarthroses (P<0.001), and a 72% reduction in target-joint bleeding (≥3 hemarthroses in a single joint during a 6-month treatment period) (P<0.001). Thirty-three randomly assigned patients received at least one infusion of the study drug and were evaluated for safety. One patient had an allergic reaction to the study drug.
CONCLUSIONS
AICC prophylaxis at the dosage evaluated significantly and safely decreased the frequency of joint and other bleeding events in patients with severe hemophilia A and factor VIII inhibitors. (Funded by Baxter BioScience; Pro-FEIBA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00221195.)