Purpose: We aimed to develop indicators based on electronic administrative data to compare treatment intensity at a hospital level in Tuscany, Italy. Methods: Data from 3 university hospitals (UHs), 11 local hospitals (LHs) and 2 private hospitals were analysed. Patients newly treated with an intravitreal injection were followed up for 365 days. Indicator #1 concerned hospitals with >80% of injections linked to a drug and patients with all injections linked to a drug. Indicator #2 included patients who received ⩾3 injections during the first 90 days, regardless of injection-drug linkage. Results: Indicator #1 was computed on four hospitals and included 3210 patients (48.3%). The average number of injections was 3.24 in the largest UH1. Compared to the latter, indicator #1 was significantly lower in UH2 and UH3 (−0.47 and −0.58, respectively; p < 0.001). Indicator #2 was computed on all hospitals and included 2789 patients (41.9%). UH1 delivered about 4.33 injections. Compared to the latter, LH4 delivered +0.62 injections (p < 0.001) and nine other hospitals delivered between −0.22 and −0.94 injections (p < 0.05). Conclusion: The two indicators proved to have the potential for supporting clinicians and policy makers in promoting the appropriate treatment intensity with intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor drugs.

Use of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor drugs for eye disease in Tuscany: Development and test of indicators of treatment intensity

Figus M.;
2019-01-01

Abstract

Purpose: We aimed to develop indicators based on electronic administrative data to compare treatment intensity at a hospital level in Tuscany, Italy. Methods: Data from 3 university hospitals (UHs), 11 local hospitals (LHs) and 2 private hospitals were analysed. Patients newly treated with an intravitreal injection were followed up for 365 days. Indicator #1 concerned hospitals with >80% of injections linked to a drug and patients with all injections linked to a drug. Indicator #2 included patients who received ⩾3 injections during the first 90 days, regardless of injection-drug linkage. Results: Indicator #1 was computed on four hospitals and included 3210 patients (48.3%). The average number of injections was 3.24 in the largest UH1. Compared to the latter, indicator #1 was significantly lower in UH2 and UH3 (−0.47 and −0.58, respectively; p < 0.001). Indicator #2 was computed on all hospitals and included 2789 patients (41.9%). UH1 delivered about 4.33 injections. Compared to the latter, LH4 delivered +0.62 injections (p < 0.001) and nine other hospitals delivered between −0.22 and −0.94 injections (p < 0.05). Conclusion: The two indicators proved to have the potential for supporting clinicians and policy makers in promoting the appropriate treatment intensity with intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor drugs.
2019
Virgili, G.; Tosi, G. M.; Figus, M.; Rizzo, S.; Murro, V.; Mucciolo, D. P.; Roberto, G.; Gini, R.
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11568/1017852
 Attenzione

Attenzione! I dati visualizzati non sono stati sottoposti a validazione da parte dell'ateneo

Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 1
  • Scopus 3
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 3
social impact