Search

Introduction Providing comprehensive stroke care poses major organisational and financial challenges to the German healthcare system. The quasi-randomised TEMPiS–Flying Intervention Team (TEMPiS-FIT) study aims to close the gap in the treatment of patients who had ischaemic stroke in rural areas of Southeast Bavaria by flying a team of interventionalists via helicopter directly to patients in the regional TEMPiS hospitals instead of transporting the patients to the next comprehensive stroke centre. The objective of the present paper is to describe the methods for the economic evaluation (TEMPiS-Gesundheitsökonomische Analyse (TEMPiS-GÖA)) alongside the TEMPiS-FIT study to determine whether the new form of care is cost-effective compared with standard care.Methods and analysis The within-trial cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) and cost–utility analysis (CUA) will be performed from a statutory health insurance perspective as well as from a societal perspective over the time horizon of 12 months after the patients’ hospital discharge. Direct costs from outpatient and inpatient care are collected from routine data of the participating health insurance funds, while medical and non-medical costs from a patient’s perspective are retrieved from primary data collected during the TEMPiS-FIT study and follow-up questionnaires. Results will be presented as incremental cost-effectiveness ratio and incremental cost-utility ratio quantifying the incremental costs and health benefits compared with standard care practice. The outcome of the CEA will be measured in costs per minute reduction in mean process time to thrombectomy. The outcome of the CUA will be presented as costs per quality-adjusted life year gained.Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval for the TEMPiS-FIT study was granted by the Bavarian State Medical Association Ethics Committee (# 17056). Results will be disseminated via reports, presentations of the results in publications and at conferences and on the TEMPiS website.Trial registration number German Clinical Trials Register DRKS00023885. Registered on 2 July 2021 – retrospectively registered.

Objectives The objectives of this study were to investigate the utilisation patterns of pregabalin, to identify users potentially misusing pregabalin and to compare this group of patients to patients prescribed recommended doses of pregabalin concerning their personal characteristics and the coordination among their prescribers. Unintended coprescription of drugs with addictive potential might occur when care is insufficiently coordinated.Design Secondary data analysis of linked data from three regional sickness funds in Germany (AOK) for the years 2014–2016.Setting Ambulatory and hospital care sector in four German federal states.Methods On the basis of routine data, patients who received at least three prescriptions of pregabalin were identified and classified into patients prescribed pregabalin as recommended and those dispensed with a higher than recommended dose (>600 mg/day). Social network analysis was applied to identify prescription networks and to analyse cooperation among the prescribers. With descriptive statistics and univariate statistical tests, typical characteristics of the group of patients potentially misusing pregabalin were compared with the others.Results Among the 53 049 patients prescribed pregabalin, about 2% (877) were classified as potentially misusing pregabalin. The majority of this group was male and aged between 30 and 60 years. Of the patients misusing pregabalin, 365 (42%) had a diagnosed history of substance use disorders and 359 (41%) had been prescribed another drug with addictive potential (opioids) before. The prescribers of those patients potentially misusing pregabalin were more loosely connected within networks compared with prescribers of patients prescribed pregabalin as recommended.Conclusion This study found that patients could exceed recommended doses of pregabalin by getting prescriptions from multiple physicians. Specific patients were at increased risk of potentially misusing pregabalin, and these patients sought to obtain their prescriptions from physicians who were as loosely connected as possible. Coordination and sharing a relevant number of patients seem to be levers to avoid these problems of unintended coprescribing.