CIIS - Documentos de Conferências / Conference Objects
URI permanente para esta coleção:
Navegar
Entradas recentes
- Casuistic of surgical cases in a university clinic with the SAC assessment tool - a preliminary studyPublication . Marques, T.; Martins, D.; Azevedo, L.; Araújo, F.; Correia, A.
- Beyond just words: ensuring cultural appropriateness in patient-reported outcomes (PROs) - a design protocolPublication . Gomes, Ana Filipa; Lee, Christopher; Neves-Amado, João
- Hope in adults with inflammatory diseases: a scoping reviewPublication . Guedes, Ana; Santos, Joana; Teixeira, Flávia; Torres, Joana; Capelas, Manuel Luís; Charepe, Zaida
- Triage systems in palliative care - a scoping reviewPublication . Gaudêncio, Margarida; Gonçalves, Florbela; Capelas, Manuel Luís
- Equity of access: the referral process in palliative care – preliminary data from a scoping reviewPublication . Ramos, Andreia; Marinho, Susana; Capelas, Manuel Luís
- Economic cost of avoidable emergency care for palliative patients: the national reality in PortugalPublication . Afonso, Tânia dos Santos; Santos, Inês Filipa de Matos; Martins, Lurdes; Capelas, Manuel Luís
- Health-Related Suffering (HRS) in people with palliative care needs: Portugal 1980-2022Publication . Capelas, Manuel Luís; Santos, Inês Filipa de Matos; Nunes, Sofia; Mateus, Ana Francisca; Afonso, Tânia dos Santos
- Place of death and palliative care access in Portuguese dementia patients: a trend analysisPublication . Santos, Inês Filipa de Matos; Afonso, Tânia dos Santos; Nunes, Sofia; Mateus, Ana Francisca; Capelas, Manuel Luís
- Work productivity and indirect cost savings of atogepant versus topiramate: results from the TEMPLE trialPublication . Terán, J. Díaz de; Gandhi, P.; Guo, H.; Haile, F.; Nagy, K.; Carr, K.; Versijpt, J.; Gil-Gouveia, R.; Buse, D.; Lipton, R.Background and aims: Using the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI): Migraine, we contrasted presenteeism, absenteeism, overall work productivity, and indirect cost savings of participants who received atogepant versus topiramate for the preventive treatment of migraine. Methods: TEMPLE was a phase 3b, randomized, multicenter, double-blind (DB), double-dummy, active-controlled trial to evaluate tolerability, safety, and efficacy of atogepant compared with topiramate for the preventive treatment of migraine. WPAI:Migraine was evaluated at each 4-week time point during the 24-week DB period. An excel-based cost calculator used WPAI data to calculate the per-patient-per-year (PPPY) work productivity cost by multiplying the percent overall work productivity loss, weeks per year, standard weekly full-time work hours (40), and the average hourly wage in Canada, Portugal, United Kingdom, and United States. Productivity benefit from using atogepant was calculated as the difference between atogepant and topiramate productivity loss PPPY. Results: Based on WPAI data from TEMPLE, atogepant demonstrated greater improvements in presenteeism and overall work productivity (Figures 1 and 2), and lower absenteeism and activity impairment versus topiramate. The cost calculator using overall work productivity data demonstrated atogepant provided greater productivity benefits and indirect cost savings compared with topiramate across all 4 countries (Table 1). Conclusion: Atogepant consistently demonstrated greater improvement compared to topiramate across all four WPAI domains. Using TEMPLE WPAI data, atogepant demonstrated work productivity benefit compared to topiramate in Canada, Portugal, UK, and United States.
- Impact of trialing multiple triptans on work productivity and indirect costs in employed individuals with migraine: CaMEO-I study findingsPublication . Versijpt, J.; Fanning, K.; Gandhi, P.; Chalermpalanupap, N.; Leroux, E.; Jacob, P.; Carr, K.; Buse, D.; Gil-Gouveia, R.Background and aims: Individuals with migraine may experience suboptimal efficacy or adverse events with triptans, potentially contributing further to disease burden, particularly among working populations. CaMEO-I, a multi-country, crosssectional, observational survey study, assessed the burden of migraine internationally. This analysis evaluates the impact of the number of triptans trialed on work productivity loss and annual indirect costs, among employed individuals with migraine. Methods: This post hoc analysis included employed adults with complete Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI) data from CaMEO-I, stratified by number of triptans trialed: current user (0), 1, 2, and ≥3. Median work impairment and indirect costs were measured via WPAI. Indirect costs were estimated in respondents' local currency, scaled using countryspecific working weeks, and adjusted for inflation to October 2025 values. Results: Here, data from US (n=565), UK (n=506), and Germany (n=571) are reported; results for all six countries are in the complete analysis. Median WPAI: overall work productivity Impairment ranged from 50.0–85.8%, increasing with the number of triptans trialed (Figure 1). Parallel trends were observed in median annual indirect costs. Those who trialed ≥3 triptans generally demonstrated the highest indirect costs: $32,927 (US), £18,964 (UK), and €24,716 (Germany). Across all countries, indirect cost generally increased across response strata, with most countries showing the greatest cost burden among individuals who trialed ≥3 triptans (Figure 2). Conclusion: Insights from the CaMEO-I study suggest that among employed individuals with migraine, trialing multiple triptans is associated with increases in both work productivity loss and indirect costs, across multiple countries.