English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

To compare health services utilization and payments for cancer patients who received an implantable intrathecal drug delivery (IDD) system, consisting of a pump and catheter, vs. conventional medical management (CMM) for the treatment of cancer‐related pain.    Methods  This retrospective claims‐data analysis compared health services utilization and payments in a population of patients receiving either IDD or CMM for treatment of cancer pain. Patients were propensity score‐matched 1:1 based on characteristics including, but not limited to, age, gender, cancer type, comorbid conditions, and health care utilization and payments.    Results  From a sample of 142 IDD patients and 3188 CMM patients who met all inclusion/exclusion criteria, 73 matched pairs were obtained. In the year following implant, IDD patients had a consistent trend of lower medical utilization, and total payments that were $3195 lower compared to CMM.    Conclusions  Despite the high initial cost of IDD, this analysis suggests that patients with IDD incur lower medical utilization and payments over the first year post‐implant. Further analysis comprised of a larger, longitudinal sample would contribute to health economics and outcomes research, and assist with future practice guideline development.

Health Services Utilization and Payments in Patients With Cancer Pain: A Comparison of Intrathecal Drug Delivery vs. Conventional Medical Management